Today we arrive at our third week of reading through Mere Christianity. The first week we read the Introductory bits while last week we read the first book, “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe.” This week we read the second book, “What Christians Believe.”
Discussion
In Mere Christianity Lewis attempts only to teach only the very foundations of the faith. Hence his look at “what Christians believe” touches only on the most basic but foundational beliefs. In this section we see, I think, Lewis at his best and his worst; we see his amazing brilliance at times but also see where some of his beliefs seem borderline unbiblical.
Lewis begins this book by looking to rival conceptions of God and does a fantastic job of showing the intellectual dishonesty of atheism. When he was an atheist, he says, “my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.” Atheism turns out to be too simple, too dishonest. “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.”
In the second chapter, “The Invasion,” he deals with the entrance of evil into the world. He says here that one of the reasons he believe Christianity is that it is a religion you could not have guessed. There is an “otherness” about Christianity; this proves that it could not be the invention of men. As he introduces evil he says “wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in the wrong way. … Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness. And there must be something good first before it can be spoiled.” This is a theme that we see in The Chronicles of Narnia as well. Badness and goodness are not equal forces; badness is simply goodness gone wrong.
In “The Shocking Alternative” he discusses free will and man’s response to God. He says “free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.” Though I understand why people hold to this (it is, after all, a very common belief), I am not convinced that we can easily prove it from Scripture. I am not convinced that God gave us free will because the alternative would be robotic, automated worship. This may be the case, but I don’t think Scripture tells us as much. Lewis also treads on dangerous ground by introducing “risk” in connection to free will, saying that God “thought it was worth the risk” to give people free will. The niwhole idea of risk seems to contradict God’s omniscience and omnipotence. It may be that Lewis sees risk as mere anthropomorphism. If so, I can see some validity in such a statement. However, I do think we are on potentially dangerous ground here. Much of the rest of this chapter is fantastic. Lewis says, for example, that “God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.” He begins to introduce Jesus, asking the reader to deal properly with Jesus’ claims and not allowing the reader to see Jesus as merely a good or kind man. He concludes with his well-known “liar, lunatic or Lord” grid.
“The Perfect Penitent” deals with the atonement. Here we see a vague outline of Lewis’ thoughts on the atonement; and what we see is not necessarily orthodox (think: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe). He warns, rightly I think, that theories of the atonement are not themselves the thing you are asked to accept. But this must not let us off as we attempt to understand it and to understand it rightly. While Lewis has the basics right (“We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity.”) from what I can see, he gets the details wrong.
He concludes this book with “The Practical Conclusion.” Here he admits just how strange this whole thing is—how strange the Christian claims are. He draws an analogy to sex saying, “He [God] did not consult us when He invented sex: He has not consulted us either when He invented this.” As odd as the Christian claims may be, we are not asked by God to do anything less than accept them and to trust in him. This final chapter is a call for the reader to simply believe and obey. Unfortunately, while Lewis affirms “that no man can be saved expect through Christ” he leaves a door wide open, saying “we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.”
As I said, in these few pages we have seen Lewis at his brilliant best. But we have also seen how some of his beliefs were simply not biblical. I suspect we will see more of this as we continue through the book.
Next Week
Next Thursday is Christmas. The Thursday after that is New Years Day. These are about the lowest-traffic days of the year for the Internet and I know not too many of us will be thinking about C.S. Lewis. So why don’t we reconvene on January 8. We’ll read the first six chapters of Book III. That’s about 35 or 40 pages in three weeks; shouldn’t be too hard!
Your Turn
The purpose of this program is to read these classics together. So if there is something you’d like to share about what you read, please feel free to do so. You can leave a comment or a link to your blog and we’ll make this a collaborative effort.
Comments (40) »
1. Scott D. Andersen
December 18, 2008
10:00 AM
Tim, Great review. Especially how you describe this as Lewis at his Best and Lewis at his worst with the accompanying examples. As I read Lewis, I pictured myself trying to describe, “what is Christianity?” to someone who has no reference point whatsoever. (not so uncommon) I would be unable to do this along the lines of argument Lewis follows in both books I and II. His approach is done on quite different grounds than my abilities. But I do hope to learn from the Best and be wary of the Worst of Lewis as we continue to read and to see what God by Grace has in store through this book.
sda
2. Paul
December 18, 2008
10:20 AM
Well put. There was some great points in this section, but this was the part where I really missed scripture… and so did Lewis apparently. I wish he would have gone with sound biblical doctrine.
I posted a few thoughts here:
http://possumbane.livejournal.com/443943.html
3. Jenny Hinton
December 18, 2008
10:44 AM
Tim, your comments are spot on. As I read this week, I would swing from, “This is fantastic,” to “HUH?” I am grateful to have had church leadership who encouraged me to be discerning and not just believe something because of who wrote it. Test everything with scripture!
That being said, I humbly acknowledge that I have little to add to the conversation other than a bit of encouragement. Thank you for providing accountability for those of us who have had this classic sitting unread on a bookshelf for years! I homeschool my daughter and run after my two little ones all day, so I’m really good and starting a book five or six times, only to eventually give up. Knowing others are reading along with me is inspiring me to keep up! Thanks so much. (And maybe some day I will finish Edwards’ “Charity and Its Fruits.” LOL!)
4. Rebecca
December 18, 2008
11:19 AM
I love how C.S. Lewis makes understanding God and Christianity so simple. He writes simply but it contains gold nuggets.
I really enjoyed reading the second chapter and what he said about how “badness is simply goodness gone wrong..” I never really thought of it that way but it is true. It makes me sad to think though of crimes that people commit that are sexual in nature. Sex is meant to be good between a husband and wife but unfortunately something that is good can become not only wrong but evil.
Thank you for pointing out Tim that some of what he wrote does not necessarily line up with the Bible. It is easy just to read and agree with everything he says. But I am glad you were there to point out some mistakes.
Thanks!
5. Ray Fowler
December 18, 2008
11:22 AM
Interesting thoughts on free will and risk. I have noticed Tim Keller (who is very much influenced by Lewis) also likes to talk about vulnerability and risk in relation to God. I just read this last night in Nancy Guthrie’s new book, Come Thou Long expected Jesus:
“There is no way to have a real relationship without becoming vulnerable to hurt. And Christmas tells us that God became breakable and fragile. God became someone we could hurt. Why? To get us back.” (Tim Keller, Come Thou Long expected Jesus, p. 38)
6. paul t
December 18, 2008
11:56 AM
I love reading your commentary and all the other participants opinion. I love the way Lewis concludes chapter 3 by using the lunatic/liar argument. The best way to lead someone to Christ is your own personal testimony. Lewis provides a great response to those who say Christ is a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept Him as God. As I read other peoples comments I find myself agreeing that some of his theology is flawed. At the end of chapter 5 Lewis clearly states” We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ…”
7. Michael @ westport
December 18, 2008
12:21 PM
I agree with your overview wholeheartedly. Of course, I had reasons to anticipates a head-scratching from the outset. When one asks Methodists, Anglicans, and Roman Catholics to proofread, one wonders how broad the lines will be drawn.
A couple of things were profoundly helpful to me. The first is his tone. He is so very honest without being overly casual. Atheism is “too simple” to be true. The same with diluted Christianity, “the view which simply says there is a good God in Heaven and everything is all right-leaving out all the difficult and terrible doctrines about sin and hell and the devil, and the redemption. Both these are boys’ philosophies. It is no good asking for a simple religion. After all, real things are not simple.” I would tend to say that his candor is almost childlike. Like Lucy Pevensie?
The second is that Christianity proves itself to be true precisely because of its rough edges. “Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. … It has just that queer twist about
it that real things have. So let us leave behind all these boys’ philosophies-these over-simple answers. The problem is not simple and the answer is not going to be simpler either.”
That is superb!
8. Lisa
December 18, 2008
2:19 PM
Tim, your summary is excellent and so clear. It made me want to re-read the chapters for things I missed. I’m also learning much from all who post. Thanks.
Lewis would be scolded today for intolerance: “…being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic—there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong….” (Ch 1)
This is also very un-PC in our age: “…as if “religion” were something God invented, and not His statement to us of certain quite unalterable facts about His own nature.” (Ch 2)
Lewis points to truth that exists outside of our thoughts. Truth just is. Whether we believe it or not, or acknowledge it or not, it is. He is.
In Ch 3, he made me consider how absurd it must have seemed when Jesus forgave people that weren’t necessarily apologizing to him. It would be like me telling my husband, “I forgive you for arguing with a co-worker today.” But with Jesus, all hurts toward others ARE hurts toward him. This can’t be used as proof that he is deity, but at least proof that he thought he was.
“He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin.” (Ch 3)
More thoughts here: http://lisanotes.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-my-religion-right-other-thoughts.html
9. donsands
December 18, 2008
2:33 PM
Mere Christianity is one tough book to push through for me. I appreciate the thoughts Tim. And the comments were good stuff as well. I’m just not getting into reading this book; I don’t get it.
10. Jenna
December 18, 2008
2:50 PM
I agree with Jenny. Some of the things Lewis says are so profound I just had to put the book down for a moment and appreciate his skill with words. At other times, I was scratching my head saying to myself, “Where could he possibly get an idea like that!!”
One phrase that I read over and over again that makes no sense to me is Lewis, in one sentence, saying “We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.”
I have no idea what he was thinking when he wrote this. To me, it is a complete dichotomy, unless I am misunderstanding Lewis’s meaning. How can those two statements possibly be compatible?
11. Jessica Watson
December 18, 2008
4:17 PM
I also agree with your assessment, Tim, regarding this portion of the book. It’s funny, because the parts that are good are really, really good - like the “liar, lunatic, Lord” paragraph, and the parts that are bad are really, really bad - like “God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are.”
His famous “Liar, lunatic, Lord” paragraph is such a simple, yet profound way of looking at the claims of Christ that I have used it with my son (eight years old at the time) to help him understand how we can believe that Christ is who He said He was.
I also love the line, “fallen man is not simply an imperfect creature who needs improvement: he is a rebel who must lay down his arms.” How desperately our self-help, postmodern gospel needs to hear this!
One more thought - I believe Lewis is wrong, but he is consistent in his idea about us not knowing that only those who know Christ can be saved through Him. In The Last Battle, the seventh of the Narnian chronicles, a young Calormen, Emeth, finds his way into the New Narnia, although he had formerly served Tash. Aslan tells him that “all the service thou has done to Tash, I account as service done to me… unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.” If you read the whole scene, it might help you understand what Lewis means a little more. It won’t cause you to agree, but at least to understand his thinking.
12. Mark@DR
December 18, 2008
4:57 PM
Alright, I have to do this. Jessica (#11) is going in the direction I was pursuing. Here is the venerable J.C. Ryle (the first author in Tim’s Reading the Classics Together series, I believe) from Baker’s Expository Thoughts from the Gospels. It also fits in nicely with the Christmas season.
Matthew 2:1-12 show us “that there may be true servants of God in places where we should not expect to find them. The Lord Jesus has many ‘hidden ones’ like these wise men. Their history on earth may be as little known as that of Melchizedek, and Jethro, and Job. But their names are in the book of life, and they will be found with Christ in the day of his appearing. It is well to remember this. We must not look round the earth and say hastily, ‘all is barren.’ The grace of God is not tied to places and families. The Holy Ghost can lead souls to Christ without the help of many outward means. Men may be born in dark places of the earth, like these wise men, and yet like them be made ‘wise unto salvation.’ There are some travelling to heaven at this moment, of whom the church at the world know nothing. They flourish in secret places like the lily among thorns, and ‘waste their sweetness on the desert air.’ But Christ loves them, and they love Christ.” (Ryle, 10)
“Last, but not least, the conduct of the wise men is a striking example of faith. The believed in Christ when they had never seen Him; - but that was not all. They believed in Him when the Scribes and Pharisees were unbelieving; - but that again was not all. They believed in Him when they saw Him a little infant on Mary’s knee, and worshipped Him as a king. This was the crowning point of their faith. They saw no miracles to convince them. They heard no teaching to persuade them. They beheld no signs of divinity and greatness to overawe them. They saw nothing but a new-born infant, helpless and weak, and needing a mother’s care like any one of ourselves. And yet when they saw that infant, they believed that they saw the divine Saviour of the world. ‘They fell down and worshipped Him.’ “
“We read of no greater faith than this in the whole volume of the Bible. It is a faith that deserves to be placed side by side with that of the penitent thief. The thief saw one dying the death of a malefactor, and yet prayed to Him, and ‘called Him Lord.’ The wise men saw a new-born babe on the lap of a poor woman, and yet worshipped Him and confessed that He was Christ. Blessed indeed are those that can believe in this fashion!”
So I guess my question is this: do we have to get quasi-dispensational about this and say, “Well, the Magi and Melchizedek and Jethro and Job were all before the Cross.” But that begs the question, “What about everyone who believed that Jesus was the Messiah before He died on the Cross?” We’re now faced with a question of consistency. If God’s call is indeed monergistic and all of grace, and He is no respecter of persons or place or race or family, and he can call Job or Jethro or Melchizedek, then I think it must follow that Lewis must have grounds for his belief that a Muslim like the Calormene soldier could go to heaven? Lewis certainly isn’t conflating the Triune God and Allah like Shift the Ape tries to do, and Lewis rejected religious pluralism outright.
The OT makes it clear that many (if not most) pagan nations and people groups have no believers, hence God’s command to the Israelites to destroy entire peoples, leaving none alive. But exceptions like Rahab demonstrate that God does indeed have ‘hidden ones.’
None of this is to say that we should have faith in a doctrine of hidden ones! We should always operate on the premise that faith comes by hearing, that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.
Open to critiques, willing to learn…
Mark
13. Jim Brown
December 18, 2008
6:19 PM
I’ll hit just one point.
“he leaves a door wide open, saying “we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.””
Are not those under the Old Covenant not also saved through Christ, even though they never knew him during their earthly lives?
Matthew 27:51-53 (New International Version)
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
Thoughts?
-jim
http://ke4juh.wordpress.com/
14. David Porter
December 18, 2008
6:43 PM
Ok. Maybe I came to this text with a wrong expectation, but Lewis continues to miff me off.
http://www.boomerinthepew.com/2008/12/cs-lewis-mere-c.html
He makes statements that seem profound, and then, in the next paragraph, has me scratching my head wondering where on earth he is coming from.
I guess the bottom line is that Lewis is NOT attempting to help me understand the things of Christ, rather, it seems, he is attempting to use reason to first understand a Creator, and then, from his reasoned approach, decides it is prudent to place his faith in the Christ of Christianity.
I didn’t come from that path, therefore, I am having a very difficult time understanding a reasonable faith. I don’t find Christianity at all reasonable.
Am I out to lunch on this?
15. Jenna
December 18, 2008
7:09 PM
Mark
I appreciate your thoughts on this and it really helped clarify what Lewis meant by that sentence. However, I think a distinction needs to be made about the examples you cited. The Magi, Jethro, Job and Rahab were still converted to the same God even though the means were unique. That cannot be said about the Muslim Calormene who served the wrong God his whole life but, according to Lewis still has a place in Heaven.
The problem is that the world if full of sincere people who are sincerely wrong. Wrong about the “god” they have put their faith in. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think the Bible teaches that the sincere will inherit the Kingdom of God, but those who have been redeemed by Christ’s death on the cross.
16. Curtis
December 18, 2008
8:16 PM
Of course you know I’m going to have alot to say, don’t I always?
Rather than directing my comments towards individual points Lewis made that are not doctorinally sound I’ve chosen to refrain from using my own words and will comment with use of scripture. I think what is wrong with what Lewis purports is he, as many in the professing church no longer say, “Thus sayith the Lord”.
Though Lewis makes many good points and uses philosophy in a practical way, his complete lack of using scripture makes my head hurt and gives me a sense of frustration. I have chosen to point out several statements that he made that are not only not found in scripture but those that are opposed to sound biblical teaching. It will take more time of study and hopfully I will be done in the next day or so.
Until then read with caution, and don’t be afraid to question Lewis on any point. I am glad to have read this book as otherwise I may not have known what Lewis believed, and now that I’m finding out and will have read this book in the next few weeks several times, I can put it back on my shelf and get back to reading books written by theologically sound men of God.
Until then…
17. Deron
December 18, 2008
9:58 PM
“We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.”
What does this mean?
I think a clue to Lewis’s intent can be found in The Last Battle when Emeth the Calormene who is a devoted servant of Tash is allowed into heaven. Aslan says something to the effect that “All the devotion you did for Tash, you did for me.”
I’m not saying I agree with this, but it does sort of illustrate his line of reasoning.
18. Tom Hardy
December 18, 2008
11:02 PM
I think it was JI Packer (or was it AW Pink?) that said something to the effect of “if there is one rogue molecule, it would mean that God isn’t sovereign”. If this is true and I believe it is, then it says a lot about what Lewis says about risk.
19. Laurie
December 19, 2008
12:19 AM
Great comments, all of you, on a very thought provoking reading!
My thoughts, which are late, and rather detailed and lengthy can be found here: http://lauriemo.blogspot.com/2008/12/mere-christianity-book-two-what.html
20. desertman2
December 19, 2008
1:11 AM
would that we had more voices like Lewis in our own time! the madness is everywhere…Planned Parenthood of Indiana has been caught on video covering up the sexual abuse of minor girls. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EinILQ4hDP0
where are the advocates for the voiceless in our society today? Kyrie Eleison.
21. J.P.
December 19, 2008
4:15 AM
So far, Mere Christianity has been putting the basics of the Christian worldview down about as clear as can be. It sounds like a lot of readers had problems with this section though - saying that Lewis was unBiblical. But no one has actually come up with any examples yet - I actually think Lewis is trying to be very careful to ONLY say just enough so that what his says is Scriptural without taking things any further so that you end up in a particular demoninational camp. This is why some of you might think Lewis is wrong on the atonement, but all he does is summarize the basics without adding anything else that isn’t necessarily said in Scripture to begin with.
David, sounds like you’re having a hard time understanding some of it - try looking at it this way - yes, Christianity is true therefore it is the most reasonable thing to believe. Christianity has reason and logic on it’s side because reason/logic come from God in the first place. Lots of Christians say that you have to accept Christianity blindly by faith. But this isn’t true. You can believe in the existence of God and the truth of Christianity by pure logical reasoning. But, this does not make you a Christian, and Lewis isn’t saying that it does. Faith in Christ’s work on the cross and resurrection is what makes you a Christian. You can believe in God and believe that Christianity is logically true without being a Christian. But because there are logical reasons for believing that Christianity is true, that’s all the more reason why you should put your faith in Christ.
22. J.P.
December 19, 2008
4:55 AM
or, here’s a more simple question -
Can anyone here come up with a passage of Scripture that even one sentence of Mere Christianity contradicts?
Not to say Lewis is infallible, or that I don’t personally disagree with a few things he says - but I haven’t seen him contradict Scripture in our readings so far.
23. Curtis
December 19, 2008
7:13 AM
Laurie, excellent comments, you saved me much time in writting, though there are a few points i could add. One that sticks out is his statement that God does not demand repentance. I have thoughoughly waisted my time on this reading but will see it through to the end, Mere Christianity is not I will nor would recommend to anyone, it just is not worth the time, there are much better books, and when I finish this one I will get back to biblically sound authors. Authors who’s books contain more scripture in the preface than this entire book. Sad.
I second everything Laurie wrote, though would have been slightly more picky in several areas.
http://lauriemo.blogspot.com/2008/12/mere-christianity-book-two-what.html
24. Mike
December 19, 2008
11:31 AM
Curtis (and others in this thread),
What is the point of reading at all if you seem to have everything figured out in advance? It seems many in this thread are only reading Lewis to check him on whether he agrees with each and every one of their beliefs, and if he doesn’t then they will point it out and condemn him as being a waste of time. Most people here are probably reading from a Reformed background, and since you know Lewis isn’t Reformed, what did you expect? It seems obvious that he might have a different idea about the will, etc.
You say you’re wanting to return to more biblically sound authors, by which I assume you mean Reformed theologians, but what is the gain in this? Do you just want to confirm that these authors have the same ideas as you? I propose that as an alternative to this, we should read Lewis’s book and every other book with an open mind, and these new ideas that may seem uncomfortable at first a chance to change us. Even if an idea may not seem to align with Scripture, think about it anyway, because there’s a really good chance that your interpretation of a certain verse in Scripture is wrong. I would hope nobody here thinks they have everything figured out, especially about some big issues like the freedom of the will. You might object that this is dangerous and will undermine the Bible, but I think that if the Bible really is true, or if a certain interpretation of the Bible really is true, then it will win at the end of the day. But you’ll never know unless you challenge it with unfamiliar ideas. Otherwise it seems to be a blind faith, and dare I say a dead faith.
25. Curtis
December 19, 2008
2:42 PM
Mike
I understand what you are saying, and it is no the first time I’ve heard it. I really don’t care if mans opinion or theology agrees with me or reformed theology, I care if it agrees with scripture, period. You can say what you will about Lewis and pet theology and interprtation, I will stand on the clear, unambiguous, and self interpreting scriptures. Though I don’t fully comprehend much of scripture, that which I do understand I will not comprimise on, nor will others who stand firm in the truth. I tend towards a reformed theology because they hold a higher view of scripture, God and doctorine, not because they line up with what “I” belive, but with what the bible teaches.
Many love Lewis, I came to this book thinking all I heard of Lewis would be vindicated in this reading, it was only when I began reading him that I realized how much wrong he is on some very important issues. Please don’t side step the issue with false accusations rather than using biblical discernment to face the truth that Lewis made many statements that were clearly not only unbiblical but in some cases opposed to scripure. I say Lewis is a waste of my time because not because I can’t learn anything from him, nor because I disagree with him on much of what he says, but because I have hundreds of books, (some reformed, some not) that are written by men who have a better understanding of the truths of scripture than Lewis. Besides that, Lewis’s complete lack of use of scripture offers absolutely no spiritual benifit to anyone, I might as we read the news paper and expect to get sanctification through it.
I know what I said is harsh, but it is the truth.
26. Curtis
December 19, 2008
2:47 PM
PS, I do read everything with an open mind, except when they contradict, oppose or disagree with scripture, when this occurs my mind and the issue is closed. It’s called standing on and not compromising, the truth. More in the church could benifit from this attitude.
27. J.P.
December 19, 2008
3:59 PM
Curtis, you keep repeating - “Lewis made many statements that were clearly not only unbiblical but in some cases opposed to scripure.”
But I can’t seem to get anyone to point out a single passage of Scripture that one sentence of Mere Christianity contradicts. The closest anyone’s come to it is Lewis’s reference basically to the secluded native in the jungle who lives and dies without ever hearing the gospel. Here Lewis says (a) we know that no man can be saved except through Christ, and (b) we don’t know exactly what chance God gives to people who never hear Christ’s name.
Is He still powerful enough to save a some native speaking through Creation and the conscience? I think so, but I don’t know any Scripture that specifically addresses the question. Pretty weak stuff to condemn Lewis so harshly for. And he doesn’t use the Scripture enough for you? This isn’t a Bible study - it’s a talk to the unbeliever on the street who rejects the Bible in the first place because of what he believes about truth and God. If “because Bible says so” arguments are the only method of evangelism you can accept, then you’re going to lose half your opportunites to witness because it is possible for a Christian to explain the basics of even why we believe in God and why we believe the Bible is true in the first place.
28. Joel
December 19, 2008
5:27 PM
JP, you beat me to that point. The trouble with the word “unbiblical” is that it carries two completely different meanings. Curtis is using it in the Protestant sola scriptura sense of “not explicitly stated in scripture.” I think Lewis would himself agree that not everything he posits is “biblical” in that sense.
However, if we use it in the more traditional “contrary to scripture,” then Lewis’ perspective is quite biblical. Lewis relies strongly on Sacred Tradition as a Catholic or Orthodox Christian would, and indeed, in keeping with what the Church of England was in his day. His “mere Christianity” is not that of a North American Evangelical, nor of a Calvinist, for the simple reason that he was neither.
29. Joel
December 19, 2008
5:38 PM
I should mention that Mere Christianity was the book that caused me to decide I wanted to be a Christian when I was a teenager. I stilol recommend it unreservedly.
30. Laurie
December 19, 2008
5:50 PM
It would be inappropriate to keep going over here the things that were discussed in previous readings, and the comment threads there. I do recommend that anyone who’s jumped in late to the discussion to feel welcome, but in consideration to others, to go back and read the previous entries as well, as many have already explained where they’re coming from. I would like to speak very briefly to those who may have missed it, both my husband and I are actually very fond of Lewis - you might even call us fans. My husband, Paul, as a former atheist has appreciated many of the arguments presented thus far, though disagrees with some. As for me, Lewis’ views pretty much encapsulate my view of Christianity for twenty years. Much study in the last four years has led me to disagree with Lewis in several points. I understand his views completely, and therefore understand how it is that others hold them. But even with that said, I’ve found it valuable to set these matters out on the table from time to time and examine them in the light of Scripture. It certainly won’t do to hold doctrines that can’t stand up to Scripture. Though this process is challenging and uncomfortable, I highly recommend it.
31. Curtis
December 19, 2008
5:54 PM
JP,
The scripture is the means God has chosen to use to save people through the revelation of Jesus Christ. I haven’t found a verse that says there is any other way but by the word. I’m not saying everything Lewis says is wrong or unbiblical, but that where he is in error is too important to disregard or allow to go unchallenged. As far as saying, “single passage of Scripture that one sentence of Mere Christianity contradicts”. I didn’t think this was going to be necessary but rather than useing my words to refute Lewis I’ll use the only authority that matters, Scripture.
Lewis says,”But it also thinks that a great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God insists, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again.”
Scripture says,”Rom 18:20 For the creation p was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that r the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. “
Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.”
Lewis say, “Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk.”
Scripture says”Acts 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the {definite plan} and {foreknowledge} of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”
“Acts 4:28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.”
“Romans 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.”
“Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,”
God does NOT take risks!
Lewis says,”What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors own as if they had created themselves—be their own masters-invent some sort of happiness for themselves outside God, apart from God.”
Though this is true it is secondary, primarily Satan caused Eve to doubt and misrepresent God’s word.
Scripture says,”The serpent cast doubt on God’s word with his first words, “Indeed has God said…?” 3:1.
This is the first step in producing error.
Eve responds to the serpent but changes the word of God given to Adam in 2:16-17.
Since God’s command to Adam to keep the Garden was given to him before Eve was made (2:16, 22), we can assume that Adam told Eve what his instructions had been.
There is no reason to assume that Adam altered the words from God in any way.
In her conversation with the serpent, Eve changes God’s words in three places.
She omits the words ‘any’ and freely’ from 2:16.
She refers to the forbidden tree by location instead of by what it is. She changes “tree of knowledge of good and evil”, 2:17, to “tree which is in the midst of the garden,” 3:3.
She adds the phrase, “You shall not touch it,” 3:3.
So Eve misrepresented the instructions of God that she had received through Adam.
The serpent, (having more confidence to proceed by Eve’s misrepresentation?), then directly contradicted God’s word and impugns God’s motives, also in three places, 3:4-5.
“You will not die,” 3:4.
“Your eyes will be opened,” 3:5.
“For God knows…you will be like God,” 3:5.
Eve listened to the serpent’s words, rejected God’s proclamation, and decided for herself that the tree was desirable, 3:6.
In so doing, she usurped the authority of God by determining for herself what is good.
Lewis says,”First of all He left us conscience, the sense of right and wrong: and all through history there have been people trying (some of them very hard) to obey it. None of them ever quite succeeded. Secondly, He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again and by his death, has somehow given new life to men. Thirdly, He selected one particular people and spent several centuries hammering into their heads the sort of God He was—that there was only one of Him and that He cared about right conduct. Those people were the Jews, and the Old Testament gives an account of the hammering process.”
Isn’t the scripture the primary source of God’s revelation?
Scripture says”Ephesians 3:5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.”
“Colossians 1:26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints.”
“Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.”
“Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures”
“John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me”
“John 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken”
“Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus”
“Acts 17:2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures”
“Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so”
“Romans 1:2 (Show Romans 1)
which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scripture”
“Romans 15:4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope”
“Romans 15:18 (Show Romans 15)
For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed”
It is by the word, scripture that God reveals Himself and saves people, though the conscience and creation are a witness, they have NO power to save. It is through the foolishness of preaching His word that God works.
Lewis says”A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed, he certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it.”
Does he mean be saved before they understand what Christ has done?
Lewis says”Remember, this repentance, this willing submission to humiliation and a kind of death, is not something God demands of you before He will take you back and which He could let you off if He chose”
Mark 1:15 and saying, The time is fulfilled, and f the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
“Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent”
Lewis says”We mean God putting into us a bit of Himself, so to speak. He lends us a little of His reasoning powers and that is how we think”
Does he mean imputed righteousness, or something else?
Becase if He means God gives us a part of Himself then we save ourselves from then on, that is heresy.
Lewis says”People often ask when the next step in evolution—the step to something beyond man—will happen. But on the Christian view, it has happened already. In Christ a new kind of man appeared: and the new kind of life which began in Him is to be put into us.”
Thats just bad teaching
Lewis says”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.”
Repentance and faith/trust/belief, nothing else. This is borderline heresy. It astounds me how Lewis drops huge doctorinal issues such as this and offers no expanation, nor scriptural support.
Lewis says”there is no good jabbering about what it ought to be like or what we should have expected it to be like”
Well Paul and Peter and Jesus thought it necissary to “jabber” about.
There is must more in this chapter I could get into but you get the point I hope. He goes on to suggest the ability for one to lose their salvation, he also gets into consubstantiation which is a topic unto itself, but he handles it like is just a matter of fact. He says that man enables Christ to do more by adding themselves to the body of Christ. Where does he get these ideas? Not from scripture. Besides all this he is openly Arminian, but offers no scripture to support his belief that man is free to choose Christ when the scripture is quite clear on this subject.
Matthew 11:27
All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him
John 15:16
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.
Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen
Mark 13:20
And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
Romans 11:5
So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
1 Corinthians 12:18
But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.
Ephesians 1:4
even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Colossians 3:12
Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience
1 Thessalonians 1:4
For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you
How far do we need to take this? It seems blatantly obvious.
32. Curtis
December 19, 2008
6:00 PM
Joel said
“I should mention that Mere Christianity was the book that caused me to decide I wanted to be a Christian “
God must be thankful that you made that decision.
33. J.P.
December 19, 2008
7:22 PM
good grief
Curtis, since you went to the trouble of posting this (and thanks btw), post it on your blog and I’ll write out a full response to you there where anyone still interested can see it - but I don’t want to hijack Challies’ discussion thread to keep posting longer and longer arguments.
So here’s just a few of the major points -
1 - This could easily turn into a discussion of Reformed theology, with the Calvists attacking C.S. Lewis for not being Calvinist, and the nonCalvinists defending his theology as a result - I’m willing to discuss how you can admit what Reformed theology gets wrong without being an Arminian with any of you, but this isn’t the forum for it. We can find a different appropriate place for that - and anyone can reach me on my website.
2 - Curtis, the world has gone bad, and God insists on putting it right. You don’t really explain how your Bible references contradict this, which is why I suggest you go into more detail at your blog and then post the link here.
3 - If Adam and Eve really had free will, then there was a risk/chance that they would (a) obey God, or (b) disobey God. Of course, God knew what was going to happen and you might say that means that God didn’t take a risk/chance. But all Lewis is saying that God created a perfect world with the risk/chance of evil because of free will. If Adam and Eve did not have free will, and were predestined to disobey God from the beginning then I shudder to think what this would mean - God wanted sin & evil to exist and made them on to exist on purpose. Because evil, sin, pain, death, and suffering would all glorify God more than his orginal perfect creation. All Christians, Lewis included, would agree with all your predestination verses and still believe that free will and God’s sovereignty are both true at the same time.
and lastly, 4 - Lewis is then explaining Romans 1:19-20 and 2:14-15 more clearly. He never says that the moral law or the conscience is a better source of God’s revelation than Scripture. Neither does Lewis say that general revelation has the power to save.
The point is that there are general revelation arguments to be made and C.S. Lewis is making them. When you are making “general revelation” arguments, this is different than using “special revelation” which is the Scripture.
Also I wouldn’t make fun of Joel’s conversion to Christianity. I personally don’t agree with all of R.C. Sproul’s reformed theology, but I wouldn’t hesitate if given the opportunity to use Sproul’s presentation of the gospel to witness to nonChristians. Just because you disagree with Lewis’s theological beliefs about free will doesn’t mean you also can’t use him, when given the opportunity, also to share the gospel with the lost. He explains things in ways your daily devotional won’t.
34. Joel
December 19, 2008
9:02 PM
God must be thankful that you made that decision.
I wouldn’t speak for Him, Curtis, but I sure am glad of it. And I have no doubt that my youth leader’s lending me Mere Christianity was His idea.
35. Joel
December 19, 2008
9:07 PM
Sorry, Curtis. It took a minute to get what you were referring to.
I phrased it as I did not because I wanted to get into the whole “free will” thing, but because of my circumstances at the time. I had been raised in a Christian home, and like most kids that age I was doing a lot of questioning. In my case it came with occult experimentation as well. My youth leader (or her husband, I guess it was) loaned me a copy of Mere Christianity in response to my questions, and God used that book to turn my life around. So I wouldn’t use the phrase “become a Christian,” as I had been one since childhood; that event caused me to stick with it when I would otherwise have left God. Does that make more sense?
36. Tom Hardy
December 20, 2008
3:38 PM
I have to admit that when I first became a Christian I didn’t understand all the workings out of how God saved me, all I could go by is what happened to me at the time. I was convicted of my sin and put my faith in Christ for salvation.
If I was asked at the time, if I had made a decision for Christ. I would probably say yes, because I didn’t have any other knowledge to go by. It was only years later after God introduced and showed me the truth of Reformed theology that I understood that I was irresistibly drawn to Christ. This could have been because the people who proclaimed the Gospel (Salvation Army) to me were Arminian in their theology. Even when I look at that fact, I now realize that it was Him that led me into the Salvation Army at that point in my life.
Why God didn’t lead me into a Reformed Church back then, I can only guess. In many ways, I almost wish that God had not brought me through the teaching of Arminian theology, because it certainly wasn’t an easy transition into a Reformed world view (to put it mildly).
However, when I look at Romans 8:28, I see that even the beginnings of my Christian experience (if I can put it that way) were all in His sovereign plan. Why? I have no idea.
I know some Reformed believers, who said that although they were Arminians for years before embracing Reformed theology, that they believe they were not true Christians before embracing Reformed theology. I can not judge whether they were or were not true Christians, but I believe I was a Christian even back then.
Saying all that, I believe it is very important to proclaim the whole council of God and the Reformed theology is the whole council of God.
37. Levi
December 20, 2008
3:47 PM
I say this as a pretty-Reformed, conservative, Christian; conversations like this are seriously depressing.
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
We need to remember that knowing Christ is not simply assenting to the correct set of propositions. It’s the trap the Pharisees fell into. Lewis set of propositions differ from mine and probably most people here. But Christ is all over his writing and therefore worth reading. Even if we disagree, it’s a disagreement between brothers and not a battle between enemies.
A quote from Lewis seems appropriate:
…apologetic work is so dangerous to one’s own faith. A doctrine never seems dimmer to me than when I have just successfully defended it.
38. Joel
December 21, 2008
12:23 AM
Levi, I’m a conservative pre-reformation Christian, and I agree completely. That we are saved is important, and how we are saved isn’t trivial, but Who saves us is more important than either one.
I can not judge whether they were or were not true Christians, but I believe I was a Christian even back then.
Tom, I would think so. We’re saved by grace, not by doctrine, let alone by our knowledge of doctrine. The Lord saves whom He will, regardless of that person’s theological savvy.
39. Allen
December 22, 2008
3:03 PM
I guess I am stepping into the hornet’s nest (and late too), but I have posted my thoughts on Book 2 at the following link. http://theist.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/mere-christianity-review-iiimere-christianity-review-iii/
I think that there are a few of us who are simultaneously encouraged and discouraged by what we are reading.
40. David Porter
December 22, 2008
3:48 PM
Wow! Lots of fury in here. I think I will do as Lewis first suggested and stay in the “hallway”.
I just finished my second post on this chapter and am very pleased to see Lewis finally get to the point. I was greatly frustrated with his casual meandering down philosophies lane, but at the end of the day we got to the same place: faith & repentance.
Here is my post: http://tinyurl.com/8nswy4