Oh my...

I have been following this thread since it began, truly wanting to add my opinion to the discussion...

The all or nothing attitude I have witnessed with some beliefs, absolutely makes no sense to me...

I personally am absolutely confident that Christianity has changed what Jesus Christ brought to the table. I believe so many of the so called 'understandings' are actually the shallowest form of what Jesus represented...

Christianity is a misrepresentation of the Christ... fueled by fear and greed...

Touche'

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but there is no point in debating with gratuitous assertions such as yours.

and you're basing that totally on your personal opinion and no evidence whatsoever.

do some real study of the reliability of the original biblical manuscripts and then form an opinion. they are by far the most reliable documents in history.

read "the case for the real jesus" by lee strobel, a former firm atheist who is now a firm christian.

anne rice also recently became a christian.

both of these people sought out to do what so many others have done in the past, disprove christianity and the bible, failed, and became believers as they really studied it.

most people just don't like being told what to do.

spider, I love you man... You make me laugh at times, and I truly do hope that your belief system has brought you the peace within that Christ opened the door for the journey that led to mine...

cranium stated:

and you're basing that totally on your personal opinion and no evidence whatsoever.

<<<<<<< Young man, my best wishes go out to you, truly... my evidence is what Christ helped to bring into my life and within my heart and mind... in spite of Christianity... >>>>>>>

<<<<<<< Perhaps it is you who should read the deeper levels of understanding that underlie the teachings of Christ... pick up some Eastern 'philosophies'... Taoism, perhaps... and you will recognize Jesus in a better 'light'...>>>>>>>

YES JESUS IS GOD




How people can twist and turn truths.

C.S. Lewis

Salvation by Grace

Readers of this journal will nonetheless rejoice in Lewis’s emphasis on the doctrine of grace. In Reflections on the Psalms he summarized: "We are all in the same boat. We must all pin our hopes on the mercy of God and the work of Christ, not on our own goodness." In another context Lewis declared: "We are saved by grace…In our flesh dwells no good thing." In his allegory The Great Divorce, Lewis describes a man who wants only his "rights," and who has "done my best all my life" and now exclaims, "I’m not asking for anybody’s bleeding charity." A former earthling responds to him: "Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity. Everything is here for the asking and nothing can be bought." In Studies in Words Lewis referred to "‘we humans in our natural condition,’ i.e., unless or until touched by [God’s] grace" or "untransformed…human nature."

In his radio broadcasts Lewis remarked:

I think everyone who has some vague belief in God, until he becomes a Christian, has the idea of an exam or of a bargain in his mind. The first result of real Christianity is to blow that idea into bits…God has been waiting for the moment at which you discover that there is no question of earning a passing mark in this exam or putting Him in your debts.

Later Lewis said that such an awakened individual "discovers his bankruptcy" and so says to God: "You must do this. I can’t." He elaborated: "Christ offers [us] something for nothing…." In connection with good works he stated: "[You are] not doing these things in order to be saved, but because He has begun to save you already."

Probably Lewis’s finest statement on salvation by grace was formulated in the longest book he ever wrote, English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama. He said:

On the Protestant view one could not, and by God’s mercy, expiate one’s sins. Like an accepted lover, he feels that he has done nothing, and never could have done anything to deserve such astonishing happiness. All the initiative has been on God’s side, all has been free, unbounded grace. His own puny and ridiculous efforts would be as helpless to retain the joy as they would have been to achieve it in the first place. Bliss is not for sale, cannot be earned, "Works" have no "merit," though of course faith, inevitably, even unconsciously, flows out into works of love at once. He is not saved because he does works of love; he does works of love because he is saved. It is faith alone that has saved him; faith bestowed by sheer gift.

While the exegete might wish to finesse the preceding statement somewhat (for example, making it more objective and not so experiential, as in "happiness," "joy," "bliss"), certainly Lewis’s most lengthy explication of salvation by grace through faith falls clearly under the rubric of the orthodox Protestant understanding of salvation.

Conditions of Salvation

Another strategic question to ask is: What condition or conditions does Lewis prescribe for receiving the gift of salvation? In his radio broadcast he averred: A Christian "puts all his trust in Christ." In the lengthy quotation above (footnote 117) Lewis stated: "It is faith alone that has saved him; faith bestowed by sheer gift."

In an interview with Decision magazine’s Shirwood Wirt, Lewis indicated: "It is not enough to want to get rid of one’s sins. We also need to believe in the One who saves us from our sins. Not only do we need to recognize that we are sinners; we need to believe in a Savior who takes away sins." Wirt then asked Lewis if he "made a decision at the time of [his] conversion." Lewis answered that at that time he felt he "was the object rather than the subject."

William Luther White summarized: "Lewis repeatedly made the point that…salvation comes as a result of faith in God’s grace, not as the product of human moral effort." In a broadcast Lewis stated: "The business of becoming a son of God…has been done for us. Humanity is already ‘saved’ in principle. We individuals have to appropriate that salvation. But the really tough work-the bit we could not have done for ourselves-has been done for us. We have not got to try to climb up into spiritual life by our own efforts." Lewis was asked in an open session: "Can’t you lead a good life without believing in Christianity?" To this he replied that Christianity "will teach you that in fact you can’t be ‘good’ (not for twenty-four hours) on your own moral efforts…we cannot do it…"

In another open session on April 18, 1944, a factory worker who apparently thought Lewis was unclear said, "We don’t qualify for heaven by practice, but salvation is obtained at the Cross. We do nothing to obtain it…" Lewis rejoined as follows:

The controversy about faith and works is one that has gone on for a very long time, and it is a highly technical matter. I personally rely on the paradoxical text: "Work out your own salvation…for it is God that worketh in you." It looks as if in one sense we do nothing; and in another case we do a damned lot…and you must have [salvation] in you before you can work it out.

If we had only the preceding statements, subscribers to this journal could probably feel fairly at ease with Lewis’s soteriology. In other places, however, he mentions other conditions besides believing, uses different terminology, or is just plain murky. As a sampling of the murky approach in the April 18, 1944 open session, someone asked him: "How can I find God?" Instead of replying with something on the order of Acts 16:31, Lewis answered, "People find God if they consciously seek from Him the right attitude." Later he added that all people "were created to be in a certain relationship to God" and "God wants to give you a real and eternal happiness." While Lewis’s answers to the worker weren’t anti-biblical, they seem unduly vague.

In other contexts Lewis asked readers: "Will you…repent and believe?" (as the narrator was speaking to an apostate Episcopalian bishop). On the radio he announced: "Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness." When Lewis’s fictional, demonized scientist on another planet, Weston (the Un-man), writhes against another demonic attack upon him, the Christian Dr. Ransom orders him: "Repent your sins." (In the last two statements there is no mention of believing in Christ for salvation.)

Lewis said that repentance "is not something God demands of you before He will take you back…; it is simply a description of what going back is like." As Lewis put it so colorfully, repentance calls us to move "full speed astern." He also depicted repentance as a self-surrender. In another place Lewis proclaimed: "The guilt is washed out…by repentance and the blood of Christ."

On one of his radio broadcasts Lewis declared: "There are three things that spread the Christ life to us: baptism, belief, and…the Lord’s Supper." His meaning and his order of arrangement of the items are unclear.

Even more baffling is this notation in Lewis’s anthology of quotes from George MacDonald: "I am sometimes almost terrified at the scope of the demands made upon me, at the perfection of self-abandonment required of me; yet outside of such absoluteness can be no salvation." Indeed, if an "absoluteness" of "perfection" is required of us, who then can be saved? In a literary context Lewis wrote confusingly that Vergil the pagan poet "cannot have had Christian faith, hope, and charity without which no man can be saved." These kinds of statements would certainly be mystifying to the biblically untutored.

On the question of "Can one lose salvation?" Lewis has to be categorized as an Arminian for his answer would be "yes." Screwtape’s role, say Lewis’s biographers, was "to secure the damnation of a young man who has just become a Christian." In The Last Battle Susan is "of her own free will ‘no longer a friend of Narnia’ [that is, a believer]. Lewis is taking into consideration the fact that many people drift into apostasy." Even Dr. Ransom, a committed Christian in the trilogy, realizes that "everlasting unrest…might be my destination." After John (in The Pilgrim’s Regress allegory) is "converted," he is informed by his Guide: "You all know that security is a mortal’s greatest enemy."

In one article Lewis quoted some from the fourth-century Athanasian Creed: "’Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.’" Lewis commented:

The author…is not talking about unbelievers, but about deserters; not about those who have never heard of Christ, nor even those who have misunderstood and refused to accept Him; but those who have…really believed, then allowed themselves…to be drawn away into sub-Christian mode of thought.

Naturally this Arminianism did not yield much "blessed assurance." Even though his wife-at her death-said, "I am at peace with God," Lewis labored: "they tell me she is at peace. What makes them so sure of this? Why are they so sure that all anguish ends with death?"

As an Arminian Lewis espoused an unlimited atonement. In The Great Divorce he observed: "All may be saved if they so choose" (which included people on the bus ride from hell). To his old friend Greeves he wrote, "About half of [Beyond Personality] is taken up with the…doctrine…that all men can become sons of God…."

The Fate of Moral Non-Christians

Beyond the parameters of traditional Arminianism, however, Lewis expected that some non-Christians would be saved. "Though all salvation is through Jesus, we need not conclude that He cannot save those who have not explicitly accepted Him in this life." On the radio he announced: "We do know that no [one] can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him."

In the children’s Narnia series, the lion Aslan is Lewis’s Christ-figure. In The Last Battle deceivers say: "[The god] Tash and Aslan are only two different names for You Know Who." Later they use the hybrid or compound name Tashlan to make their point. At the end of this last book in the Narnia series one of the outsiders, a Calorman named Emeth (which is the transliteration of the Hebrew word for "truth"), who has been a life-long worshiper of Tash, approaches Aslan. To this Tash-server Aslan says, "Son, thou art welcome." Emeth counters, "I am no son of Thine but a servant of Tash." Aslan rejoins: "All the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me." This is a clear indicator that for Lewis the non Christ-worshiper may be received into heaven. Similarly, in another fictional setting, Jane Studdock, an unbeliever, says to Ransom the Pendragon: "I know nothing of Maleldil [the Christ-figure]. But I place myself in obedience to you." To her acknowledgment Ransom replies:

It is enough for the present. This is the courtesy of Deep Heaven that when you mean well, He always takes you to have meant better than you know. It will not be for always. He is very jealous. He will have you for no one but Himself in the end. But for tonight, it is enough.

This issue raises the question of Christianity in relation to other world religions. Lewis said: "I couldn’t believe that 999 religions were completely false and the remaining one true." Similarly he stated: "We are not pronouncing all other religions to be totally false, but rather saying that in Christ whatever is true in all religions is consummated and perfected." Kathryn Lindskoog wrote: "Lewis expressed hope that many true seekers like Akhenaton and Plato, who never had a chance to find Christ in this life, will find Him in the next one."


Baptism and Communion

J. I. Packer felt that Lewis bordered on espousing baptismal regeneration even though this is not a prominent strand in his fifty-plus books. Lewis did attach special significance to Communion in his writings. In answer to a factory worker, Lewis commented: "If there is anything in the teaching of the New Testament which is in the nature of a command, it is that you are obligated to take the Sacrament and you can’t do it without going to Church." In the same vein Lewis preached: "Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object present to your senses." In regard to the preceding sentence A. N. Wilson concluded that Lewis "clearly had a full belief in the Eucharistic Presence" or he wouldn’t have made such an assertion.

When Jack and Warnie were out walking one day, they passed a church sign that declared that "the Blessed Sacrament…should be treated with ‘special reverence.’" Over lunch the two brothers argued about this. Warnie said if one was a Roman Catholic, then "the aumbry contains our Lord and…even prostration is hardly reverence enough." However, if one is Anglican, then it "contains but a wafer and a little wine, and why in front of that should one show any greater reverence than in any other part of the church?" Jack sought to find a middle ground between the two views.

To the less sacramentally minded, Lewis acknowledged that he got "on no better with those who tell me that the elements are mere bread and mere wine, used symbolically to remind me of the death of Christ." Rather, he thought: "Here is big medicine and strong magic." Elsewhere he owned: "My ideas about the sacrament would probably be called ‘magical’ by a good many modern theologians."

Last Things

Richard Cunningham summarized Lewis’s eschatology by observing that he believed in "purgatory, heaven, hell, the second coming, the resurrection of the body, and the judgment." As a young atheist Lewis wrote (on October 18, 1916) that he could do without "a bogey who is prepared to torture me forever and ever if I should fail in coming up short to an almost impossible ideal. As to the immortality of the soul, …I neither believe nor disbelieve…" Early after his conversion experience he thought very little of an afterlife and rewards.

Praying for the dead and a concept of purgatory pretty well go hand in hand. Lewis "emphatically believed in praying for the dead." He prayed for his wife after she died. He thought that John Henry Newman had the right idea-that saved souls before God’s throne would ask to be thoroughly cleansed. Consequently, this necessitated a purgatory, though not as in a medieval doctrine of torture. In this way there would exist "Purgatory for souls already saved) or…Limbo (for souls already lost)." A television interviewer pointed out to Lewis that he "believe[d] in Purgatory." To this Lewis returned: "But not the Romish doctrine." (The Anglican view is found in Article XXII of The Book of Common Prayer). Lewis likened purgatory to sitting in a dentist’s chair, saying: "I’d rather be cleaned first." Of course, most evangelicals believe this viewpoint founders upon the perfect purgation which has already transpired in the crosswork of Christ (Hebrews 1:3; 9:15; 10:2, 10-12, 17-18).

Concerning Lewis on the Second Coming, William Luther White said: "Edgar Boss attributes to Lewis the belief that ‘Jesus is literally, personally coming again.’ …However, I am unable to find in Lewis anything to support this apparent fundamentalist position." But the prima facie reading of Lewis certainly makes it sound as if he champions an orthodox view of Christ’s Second Coming. Kathryn Lindskoog asserted: "Lewis found it impossible to retain our belief in the divinity of Christ and the truth of our Christian revelation if we abandon…the promised, and threatened, Return [of Christ]."

Lewis wrote illuminatingly of the wonders of heaven. He also spoke about hell. In one of his last published stories (disputed by Kathryn Lindskoog as to its authorship) Lewis had Dr. Elwin Ransom assert: "A man can’t be taken to hell, or sent to hell; you can only get there on your own steam." This is in line with Lewis’s Arminian soteriology, as when he remarked: "The doors of hell are locked on the inside." Yet when Lewis depicted hell fictionally in The Great Divorce, only one of the bus riders visiting heaven preferred to stay there; all else preferred their misery.

To Arthur Greeves Lewis wrote:

About Hell. All I have ever said is that the N. T. plainly implies the possibility of some being finally left in ‘the outer darkness.’ Whether this means…being left to a purely mental state…or whether there is still some sort of environment, something you could call a world or a reality, I would never pretend to know.

Evaluation and Conclusion

Predictability was not the trademark of C. S. Lewis. Nor was his an assembly-line theology. The liberal scholars of his day regarded him as a mousely Reepicheep in his attack upon their "assured results" of biblical criticism. Yet, because of his denial of biblical inerrancy, conservatives could not regard him as their knightly Dr. Ransom. When it came to New Testament historicity, Lewis siphoned off of his own expertise in the field of literary criticism to deny the Bultmannians free reign (or rein). Similarly his popularity as a BBC speaker and in spiraling book sales (especially children’s fantasies!) made him unpopular with some scholarly colleagues in the Oxbridge world.

Lewis navigated well within the orbit of orthodoxy when it came to regarding God as a trinity and Christ as deity. Here he stood in sync with the historic position of Christians since antiquity. Not only did he embrace the full supernaturalness of the Father and Son (while commenting only rarely upon the Spirit), but he accepted the bonafide existence of angels, demons, and Satan as invisible, supernatural personalities.

He refused to confine himself to one stated formulation of an Atonement theory, and he was Arminian on the extent of the Atonement and the question of whether salvation could be lost. Ironically, while he believed some Christians could lose their salvation, he believed some non-Christians could receive their final salvation.

As a member in good standing of the Anglican Church, Lewis accepted an Anglican position on purgatory and prayers for the dead, as well as practicing auricular confession of sins. He believed in a substantive reality to heaven and hell but was agnostic about matters such as the precise dimension and duration of hell.

While Lewis was not known for personal evangelism (for example, many of his students went through years of tutoring from him without ever learning that he was a Christian), ironically he became one of the most renowned international defenders of the Christian faith through his writings. Even when we disagree with some of his theological tenets, we are better off for his having forced us to grapple with his immense intellect. Like the local Christian congregation at Corinth, C. S. Lewis came up with some aberrant views and engaged in some heavy drinking, but he was never dull and the world has never been the same.

i don't need any other philosophies or religions to tell me about jesus. the bible is enough.

As I said before... the all or nothing attitudes displayed here at times completely amaze me... completely...

cranium... Jesus taught many of those things...

God lives within each of us... what feelings do you 'share' with Him?

As most people in these threads don't believe that Jesus was.....makes me beyond sad. I know for myself that I try to always say WWJD before I do anything. I am human and I fail miserably sometimes....But I do try.

to creative

Yes, I would love to save Jesus from the insolence of Christianity which I agree has strayed far from anything Jesus had ever intended.

I think I could love the man, but I could never accept the religion. It's been taken over by egotists with personal agendas.

then u obviously dont believe the bible. it IS all are nothing. jesus said "i am the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the father except through me." jesus taught that the bible was all we needed. this opinion of yours is only valid if you feel the bible is flawed and meant to control us. personally i feel if the bible is inherently wrong, there's no point in believing any of it other than to learn personal life lessons, which has no eternal reward or punishment.

you're just taking jesus and making him into what you want him to be.

Ok if that is true abra........then could you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior....and if yes.....Do you or don't you believe that Christ died on the cross for our sins.....And if you don't believe that he died for our sins......then how can you claim to think you could love him. And if you feel yes you could love him and yes he died for humans sins...then yaaaa hooooo and who cares about the religion.....The religion is of man.......The Love of the Lord is just that.

cranium states:

then u obviously dont believe the bible. it IS all are nothing. jesus said "i am the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the father except through me." jesus taught that the bible was all we needed. this opinion of yours is only valid if you feel the bible is flawed and meant to control us. personally i feel if the bible is inherently wrong, there's no point in believing any of it other than to learn personal life lessons, which has no eternal reward or punishment.

you're just taking jesus and making him into what you want him to be.


<<<<<<< No my good man, just because you THINK you know what lives in me, based on your inaccurate assumptions, tells me that you are quite the judge, and have missed key aspects of meaning in the teachings of Jesus... Jesus showed 'himself' to me... by showing me to myself, and removing all that did not belong... I learned, I live, I continue to learn... and I absolutely continue to find love and peace wherever I look for it... and some of those places are outside of the Roman council's determination of what was 'holy'...>>>>>>>




feral:



Much love to you... and everyone else...

If this were an adequate and true statement - than by the scriptures themselves, Jesus could not be God, for it is contradictory to claim that He is, yet His account is not.

In your original post Abra, you bring up the posibility that Jesus is not God - and the bible is not infallible. So this brings into question the whole idea of a massive conspiracy that would have had to have been perpetuated over a 60 year period of time - covering thousands of miles, and assuring that the writers of the Gospels periodically got together to assure that the hoax were perpetuated on a consistant basis, and that all of the "believers" of this hoax be kept abreast of all of the developments. And you appear to give this more credence than the writers simply telling what they witnessed of Jesus' ministry, and recording the words that they heard. That is what you are asking me to accept as a legitimate rebuttle of C.S. Lewis' argument. Isn't that like saying the X-files "could" be true, because it can be done on television?

You've often stated that "Jesus did not write the bible - men did". However, Peter gives an interesting argument to refute this statement. In 2 Peter 1:20 he states "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." Upon initial examination - this just makes sense. Who would create the Laws of the Old Testament - or the instructions of Paul as a means of gaining favor with men, or as a means of "controlling the masses" as I've so often heard the bible refered to. It's illogical.

And if we assume that Peter made this up - what does that say about Jesus? After all - He named Peter the "rock" and claimed that upon Him he would build His church, and that "the gates of Hades will not overcome it". Pretty poor choice of character if Peter made up stories about what Jesus said. It also calls into question the powers of God. If He had the desire for His word to be known, would He not send the Holy Spirit to inspire the authors? Is it not within His power to assure it? Though what you are introducing here may lie within a "possibility" of a scenario, to accept the premises which are being established is a bit of a stretch I think.

Savior from what? I don’t believe in Satan.

Moreover, you are asking me if I condone nailing Jesus to a cross for my sake.

No, I do not. To accept that the crucifixion of Jesus was done for me is to condone it. I refuse to condone nailing anyone to a cross for my sake.



What are you suggesting here? That I should only be capable of loving people who have died for my sins?



The idea that the creator of this universe would only be open to people who believe that he came to earth and got himself nailed on a cross to pay for “our sins” is the most absurd notion I can imagine.

If I could only love God for this reason, it’s pretty pathetic don’t you think?

What if man had never sinned and there was no reason for God to get himself nailed on a cross (like as if that would someone make things right anyway), then are you saying that we’d have no reason to love God?

It sure sounds that way to me. You seem to be saying that the only reason to love God is because he got himself nailed to a cross and if it wasn’t for that act then we’d have no reason to love him.

Sounds like a pretty sick story if you ask me Feral.

I don’t need to condone having God nailed to a cross for my sake in order to love God.

On the contrary, I’ve never done anything in this life that would even come close to warranting such a horrific act. So no, I do not condone nailing God to a cross for my sake. Put down the hammer and nails and give it up. I’ll never condone it.

Can't you just love God because she created you?

Isn't that enough?

Actually, I think this thread is quite positive on your part, and certainly thought provoking. I do agree with you about what you should have named it though. But it is not totally misleading. It does center around a question of "Is Jesus God." And your assessment of C.S. Lewis' argument is quite worthy of discourse.

I would truly be interested in your expounding on this by citing some examples, rather than assuming we know what you're refering to here.

Thank you Eljay, you've always been quite reasonable.

Good faith is essential when one's intent is to exchange honestly and open-mindedly with others.

But one for whom only his/her personnal views matter, good faith, respect of others, open heart, and open-minded attitudes might only appear as burdensome virtues.

Given the following statements you have made on this thread alone 'spider', would you be so suggest that you approached this thread in good faith, and with an intent to exchange honestly, respectfully, and open-mindedly with Abra and ohers?

Would you further suggest that you conduct yoursef as a worthy ambassador of christian values?


You wrote:


Then you wrote:


Then wrote some more:


And then added:


And finally wrote:



In your last post, truer words couldn't have been spoken:
'... Everyone is entitled to his own opinions 'spider', but there is no point in debating with gratuitous assertions such as yours...'

Life can be simple, or very complicated, 'spider'.

Show some good faith, respect of others, open-mindedness to their different views, and you will not have to ever fight and complain again that others 'bash' you, or 'bash' your views!!!

Eljay:

You ask for some examples from me, which is not a problem. However, one must understand that I believe that the Holy Bible was edited for the purpose of the promotion of Christianity. Therefore, I believe that there are many sciptures contained for that one purpose only... it's support...

Hence, my first point being my questioning regarding the completeness of the teaching(s).Jesus wrote down nothing. That leads to the acceptance that Christianity is indeed based on only what is written in the Bible, and how it has been interpreted and 'understood'.

Secondly would be concerning the notion of humans having an unworthy existence, which is separate from 'God', and is 'overcome' with the 'acceptance' of the allowing God to enter our heart through sacrifice of Christ, via crucifixion, which is believed to be the most important ingredient to finding 'God'...

Both of those notions I do not believe Jesus ever intended to promote.

I suppose we can continue this discussion from here should the notions presented be acceptable to you... I can completely understand if you choose to not continue and entertain such notion(s)... but those acceptances were pivotal in my furthered understandings.