Though it's actually about the argument from total depravity to the conclusion that our concept of good and evil are worth simply nothing applied to God.
Here is an article that sees Lewis at least tending towards Calvinism (not a caricature of Calvinism) from the Desiring God website: https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/undragoned-c-s-lewis-on-the-gift-of-salvation The pertinent quote is, "With his sympathies established, let me turn to a sample citation that seems to contradict the notion that Lewis could in any way be considered Reformed. Speaking of total depravity, he says, “I disbelieve that doctrine, partly on the logical ground that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature” (The Problem of Pain [New York: Macmillan, 1962], 66). But of course, in this he is actually rejecting a doctrine of absolute depravity, which not one of us holds. But if total depravity means total inability, which it does, it would be the work of ten minutes to show that Lewis does in fact hold to it — as we shall see in a moment.
Lewis's justification of hell, in The Problem of Pain, presumes that allowing hell is the necessary consequence of the gift of free will. But if Calvinism is true, God could have elected everyone, but didn't for some reason of his own (his own glory, for example). That isn't defended in Lewis's treatment of hell.
You have identified two weaknesses of Lewis - Soteriology and Personal Eschatology. His approach is convenient for apologetics but light on biblical exegesis. Postulating free will at the expense of sovereignty and election earns one a hearing with fellow philosophers but dilutes the biblical witness. Also, making Hell into something you make for yourself removes the inconvenient discussions of judgment, wrath, and penal substitutionary atonement. Lewis is great in his wheelhouse, but not helpful in these two areas.
I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live. (Deuteronomy 30:19)
If you will, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. He has placed before you fire and water: stretch out your hand for whichever you wish. Before a man are life and death, and whichever he chooses will be given to him (Sirach 15:15)
God ... desires all men to be saved. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
Um... It looks like both Free Will and Lewis' views on Hell have strong "biblical witness".
So, Oozielionel, your claim is that while Lewis's defense of God's goodness is strong apologetically, it does not correspond to the God of Scripture? In other words, you are saying that the God of Scripture if morally indefensible?
There are many passages in Scripture where man is told to choose. There are also many passages in scripture where God chooses. Some choices of God are clear---the thief on the cross. Some of God's choices are ambiguous---Abel rather than Cain, Jacob rather than Esau. Some of God's choices are completely mysterious--Abraham.
I have sympathies toward Calvinism in that I trust in God's judgment whether it is clear and ambiguous or mysterious to me. If God is the final judge it will be a right judgment.
Also, I'm not always sure what we are choosing. It seems we are just feeling around, often in the dark, for something there that we are unsure of. I will let God make those judgments about our choices.
You know it sickens me to do research on Lewis and find his "Christian pals" are all over the web defending his heresies. (I'm venting) John Piper teaches future justification so it makes sense he would uphold Lewis. Future justification is Federal Vision. It is still a weed, but with a different flower. Just as we have pals in politics, we have the same pals in religion.
Nevertheless, the other comment above suggestion "man is told to choose" is also erroneous. First, when we are advised t choose this day, who is being addressed? Is he at an Ozzy concert or is he speaking to God's people? People inside the camp of God? You dont find this mentality in Scripture. Go to a garden variety pagan and tell him or her to "choose this day...." Choose who? Isis? Horus? The god of the Arminians? You must know the Lord before you can choose the Lord.
OF COURSE God allows us to choose. But we choose according to our natures. Put a salad and a chicken bone in front of a dog and you have given him free will. But he is restricted to his wills passions/desires.
As an old school Messianic Jew, I never needed Calvin to defend God's sovereignty and it is foolish to run to him to defend Scripture. What is wrong with Scripture? It was here long before Calvin. My point being this; men and women hate Calvinism when they should not be pointed to Calvin. Let them hate the word of God.
Btw, I wanted to expound on the mention of the passage above "God ... desires all men to be saved. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)"
As I mentioned above, you cannot use the Scripture to speak to the world. The Scripture is written primarily to God's people.
Nevertheless, liberals often quote the passage(s) that line up with their worldview. Ignore to whom the letter was written-Timothy. Timothy is a believer.
Second, if it is God's "desire" to see ALL man saved, then who can thwart the desires of YHVH? ALL mankind will be saved. But it always amazes me that all only means all when it is convenient for "all" to matter.
The word "pas" can have different meanings according to the context. For example, this dictionary 'gets it' when it discusses "all" and "world".
"1. individually a. each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything 2. collectively a. some of all types ... the whole world has gone after him. Did all the world go after Christ? then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan. Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan?
Ye are of God, little children, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one. Does the whole world there mean everybody?
The words world and all are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the all means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile ..."
At face value this should help the student of Scripture. But as I said, worldviews always seem to dictate how and where a Scripture should be guided and interpreted. If God means all, then all shall be saved. If you are consistent, then Judas has a fighting chance, right. But you may say "but he was the son of perdition and doomed for this end!" Well then "all" does not mean all does it? Either all men are saved or not.
And I want to expound on one point already made. to Starhopper. Have you really thought about applying this precept to non believers? "choose this day who you will serve"? If you were to go to the Amazon jungle and find a head hunter, would you simply tell him/her to "choose this day"? No, you cant because they must have knowledge of who it is you are asking them to choose. The point being you cannot just apply this passage nilly willy to anyone. The audience must have knowledge in order to make such a "choice". Do you go to a blind person and ask him/her what color bird they want as a pet? Of course not.
Dont be like Lewis. 2PeTER 3:15 Think of our Lord's patience as facilitating salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him. He speaks about this subject in all his letters. Some things in them are hard to understand, which IGNORANT AND UNSTABLE PEOPLE DISTORT, leading to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures. "
8 comments:
Here is an article that sees Lewis at least tending towards Calvinism (not a caricature of Calvinism) from the Desiring God website: https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/undragoned-c-s-lewis-on-the-gift-of-salvation The pertinent quote is, "With his sympathies established, let me turn to a sample citation that seems to contradict the notion that Lewis could in any way be considered Reformed. Speaking of total depravity, he says, “I disbelieve that doctrine, partly on the logical ground that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature” (The Problem of Pain [New York: Macmillan, 1962], 66). But of course, in this he is actually rejecting a doctrine of absolute depravity, which not one of us holds. But if total depravity means total inability, which it does, it would be the work of ten minutes to show that Lewis does in fact hold to it — as we shall see in a moment.
Lewis's justification of hell, in The Problem of Pain, presumes that allowing hell is the necessary consequence of the gift of free will. But if Calvinism is true, God could have elected everyone, but didn't for some reason of his own (his own glory, for example). That isn't defended in Lewis's treatment of hell.
You have identified two weaknesses of Lewis - Soteriology and Personal Eschatology. His approach is convenient for apologetics but light on biblical exegesis. Postulating free will at the expense of sovereignty and election earns one a hearing with fellow philosophers but dilutes the biblical witness. Also, making Hell into something you make for yourself removes the inconvenient discussions of judgment, wrath, and penal substitutionary atonement. Lewis is great in his wheelhouse, but not helpful in these two areas.
I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live. (Deuteronomy 30:19)
If you will, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. He has placed before you fire and water: stretch out your hand for whichever you wish. Before a man are life and death, and whichever he chooses will be given to him (Sirach 15:15)
God ... desires all men to be saved. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
Um... It looks like both Free Will and Lewis' views on Hell have strong "biblical witness".
So, Oozielionel, your claim is that while Lewis's defense of God's goodness is strong apologetically, it does not correspond to the God of Scripture? In other words, you are saying that the God of Scripture if morally indefensible?
Star,
There are many passages in Scripture where man is told to choose. There are also many passages in scripture where God chooses. Some choices of God are clear---the thief on the cross. Some of God's choices are ambiguous---Abel rather than Cain, Jacob rather than Esau. Some of God's choices are completely mysterious--Abraham.
I have sympathies toward Calvinism in that I trust in God's judgment whether it is clear and ambiguous or mysterious to me. If God is the final judge it will be a right judgment.
Also, I'm not always sure what we are choosing. It seems we are just feeling around, often in the dark, for something there that we are unsure of. I will let God make those judgments about our choices.
You know it sickens me to do research on Lewis and find his "Christian pals" are all over the web defending his heresies. (I'm venting) John Piper teaches future justification so it makes sense he would uphold Lewis. Future justification is Federal Vision. It is still a weed, but with a different flower. Just as we have pals in politics, we have the same pals in religion.
Nevertheless, the other comment above suggestion "man is told to choose" is also erroneous. First, when we are advised t choose this day, who is being addressed? Is he at an Ozzy concert or is he speaking to God's people? People inside the camp of God? You dont find this mentality in Scripture. Go to a garden variety pagan and tell him or her to "choose this day...." Choose who? Isis? Horus? The god of the Arminians? You must know the Lord before you can choose the Lord.
OF COURSE God allows us to choose. But we choose according to our natures. Put a salad and a chicken bone in front of a dog and you have given him free will. But he is restricted to his wills passions/desires.
As an old school Messianic Jew, I never needed Calvin to defend God's sovereignty and it is foolish to run to him to defend Scripture. What is wrong with Scripture? It was here long before Calvin. My point being this; men and women hate Calvinism when they should not be pointed to Calvin. Let them hate the word of God.
Btw, I wanted to expound on the mention of the passage above
"God ... desires all men to be saved. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)"
As I mentioned above, you cannot use the Scripture to speak to the world. The Scripture is written primarily to God's people.
Nevertheless, liberals often quote the passage(s) that line up with their worldview. Ignore to whom the letter was written-Timothy.
Timothy is a believer.
Second, if it is God's "desire" to see ALL man saved, then who can thwart the desires of YHVH? ALL mankind will be saved. But it always amazes me that all only means all when it is convenient for "all" to matter.
The word "pas" can have different meanings according to the context. For example, this dictionary 'gets it' when it discusses "all" and "world".
"1. individually
a. each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2. collectively
a. some of all types ... the whole world has gone after him.
Did all the world go after Christ? then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan. Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan?
Ye are of God, little children, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one. Does the whole world there mean everybody?
The words world and all are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the all means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile ..."
At face value this should help the student of Scripture. But as I said, worldviews always seem to dictate how and where a Scripture should be guided and interpreted. If God means all, then all shall be saved. If you are consistent, then Judas has a fighting chance, right. But you may say "but he was the son of perdition and doomed for this end!" Well then "all" does not mean all does it? Either all men are saved or not.
And I want to expound on one point already made. to Starhopper. Have you really thought about applying this precept to non believers? "choose this day who you will serve"? If you were to go to the Amazon jungle and find a head hunter, would you simply tell him/her to "choose this day"? No, you cant because they must have knowledge of who it is you are asking them to choose. The point being you cannot just apply this passage nilly willy to anyone. The audience must have knowledge in order to make such a "choice". Do you go to a blind person and ask him/her what color bird they want as a pet? Of course not.
Dont be like Lewis. 2PeTER 3:15 Think of our Lord's patience as facilitating salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him. He speaks about this subject in all his letters. Some things in them are hard to understand, which IGNORANT AND UNSTABLE PEOPLE DISTORT, leading to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures. "
Post a Comment