Problems In Lewis' Theology

Originally posted by cslouis@Sep 21 2004, 03:18 PM
why not be a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or Hindu? Exactly, why not?

Although I choose to be Christian. One should not be coerced to God, one must freely choose. And give of oneself and give oneself freely.
Click to expand...
Why not? Well because only belief in Jesus Christ will give you eternal life. Thats why not.

Good post capstick, I couldn't have said it better.


Aragorn, please don't, as it might just increase my headache :p :rolleyes:
 
I really do need to check this sight more often, looks like you all refuted some of the best stuff we've had on here without me..... :(

AlwaysHis324: speldid job, as usual!

Capstick: allways supurpe!

Aragorn51088: I wish you had brought in Predestination, it would be interesting to see how people reacted to it! :D
 
Hey, I'm new here and I have been reading your posts and I think
that I would agree with capstick. We are to worship God in Spirit and in Truth.

Please post back ;)
 
Right on Smog!

God wnats us to worship him (as you said) in spirit and in truth.
It doesn't matter if we love God, we also have too worship him the way He wants to be worshiped. Jesus said "if you love me keep my commandments."
 
I am dying to witness this debate on predestination...

...so I will lead into it a little bit.

Does anyone else see the influence of Arminianism (man choosing God to save him instead of God choosing His own elect) in Lewis's writings?. I am refering to the LB in peticular.

Please be kind. I am new to this forum and it has been quite a while since I read the CON.
 
Well, I was going to let someone else reply to this for once, but apparently everyone's over in another forum talking about cheese and the correct way to butter a cat...Oh well,

I thought you brought up an interesting point Jene Sai, and I too would like to see a discussion on Predestination. Since there might be some people out there who are unfamiliar with this term, I would define predestination as the belief that from before the world or anything else was even created, God chose those who would become His elect. In other words, God has always chosen certain people to be saved, and others He has chosen to be damned. This definition should work for now, but if anyone else can think of a more accurrate one, please post it.

Anyway, its been quite a while since I've last read the Chronicles, and I can't think of any examples of Arminianism right off the top of my head. Do you know exactly which point in the book you are referring to? I am familiar with Emeth, the Calormene at the end of the book, but, as we've discussed before, that hits me as being more of a "salvation by works" sort of thing, rather than "man choosing God."
 
In regard to my earlier post...

...I was more leaning toward the influence of Arminianism on the Anglican (Church of England, Episcopal, etc.) Church. Since all men are creatures of their time, I was wondering if anyone saw this bent in Louis's writing?

Side Note...

...Dosen't salvation by works contradict predestination?...

...Because if man can earn God's grace that makes it no longer a gift. In other words, it takes the perogative out of God's hands and gives it man.

What is the general feeling on this?
 
Wow, it took me about an hour to read this whole debate and see what was going on.
Capstick, where on earth did you get such a thorough theological education? I'm not sure I agree with you on all your points (I'm not even sure I understand all of them) but I commend you for being so sure of what you believe. (And I do agree with you on pretty much everything, except that I think at times you've misunderstood the statements of others.)
In the case of Emmeth, I have a problem with what some people said earlier about interpreting Aslan as telling him that sincere worship of any god would lead to heaven. That is not what Aslan is saying at all. On the contrary, he is saying that there IS a true moral law that Aslan created in creation, and that many of us can see without even having direct knowledge of Aslan. He is saying that Emmeth followed this moral law, believing it to be the law of Tash, when in fact it was Aslan's. He is not condoning the sincere worship of Tash at all, because he himself declares that doing evil is the service of Tash no matter what name is given to it. You may say, "Well, how did Emmeth know what was right and wrong in a society that worshiped evil?" Lewis doesn't directly answer this, but I would say that (because I also believe in predestination) the Spirit of God was convicting and leading him.
Now, this is not to say that I agree with what Lewis wrote in this area, because following the true moral law is not enough to save a person, as no one can truly follow it on their own. That is why Christ's sacrifice was necessary for us. We must also remember, though, that the CoN are not necessarily a consistent allegory all the way through for C.S. Lewis's theology. They would be very dull if they were. The idea of a substitutionary sacrifice on Aslan's part is really only directed toward Edmund, and the idea of anyone having to accept that sacrifice for salvation of his sin is not even remotely introduced in the books.
The real question then is, on what is Lewis basing the salvation of Narnia (and Calormen), and does that have to be considered a perfect mirror image of his beliefs concerning the salvation of our own world? I think if you want to debate about Lewis' theology you should probably look at some of his more clearly doctrinal works.
 
I can see what you're saying, Fae, and it does make sense.

Since I've been asked (mutiple times!) to bring up Predestination, I will do so now(I haven't checked this thread for a while--homework and such, and I've been off buttering cats and discussing cheese).

I am a Presbyterian (or Frozen Chosen, if you absolutely must). I believe that God did, in fact, predestine some people to be saved and others to be condemned. I do not believe that as "The Elect" we should scorn the "Reprobate"(un-chosen), nor should we consider ourselves better than Unbelievers---it is ONLY by the grace of God ("Not by works, so that no man can boast") that we have been redeemed. As such, I believe it is our duty, no our privilege, to glorify the One True God Almighty, who was and is, and is to come. To do this, we must follow.....wait. I'm getting off on a tangent. Sorry. As Believers, we should not blow off anyone whom we think is not Predestined; we never even knew that we ourselves were Predestined before we were saved. With this in mind, we must always, always seek to reflect God's Grace and Christ's Love for us in every aspect of our lives, so that Unbelievers will be drawn to us by our actions, and not just our words. This, then, is the way in which we can seek to save the lost.
 
Will somebody post???? It's been awhile and about 10 ppl have viewed the topic; I'm not gonna smite you down if you say something contradictory to my beliefs--I would love to get to deabte or at least hear what others believe!
 
Just let me know! I didn't know if I had offended anybody, and I really enjoy getting to debate this kind of thing, so I didn't want to scare you all away! :D :p :lol:
 
Well, *I'm* not offeneded, but I can't debate you on this becasue I believe in Predestination. (Or unconditional election :D ) I've been checking this topic with great atisapation waitng for someone to say something contrarry to it.

*sigh* maybe we should say something compeatly out there, and then throw Predestination on those who post. lol!

:( Comeon! Someone post!
 
Well, I'd post, except I'm also in complete agreement (by the way Aragorn, nice job). It appears then that if we're going to keep this topic alive, we either need to (1) continue to discuss predestination and the possible influence of Arminianism in Lewis' works (as I said earlier, its been a while since I last read LB, so my memory is a bit fuzzy) (2) continue to discuss other theological problems that we might have with the Chronicles (3) finally, find some other controversial, theological topic to bring up that will get lots of people interested! (we might even consider starting a slightly different topic if people want to start a discussion on the last one).

I'm open to suggestions...
 
Well I've got a new theological error to add to the list.

I've just started to re-read the Chronicles, something I have not done in such a long time that I am throughly ashamed of myself. (I know, I know,...bad GrayCloak) I've always been aware of the deep-seated Greek influence within Lewis's works, as I've stated somewhere near the begining of this topic (You know, a couple of pages back, when we were involved in such lovely debates about theology *emits Deep long-ful sigh*) and for the most part I remember when I read the book glancing over things, or not fully understanding thier meaning. (It broke my heart when I discovered that a 'Faun' was really a satyr in Greek mythology, and for a time as I child I continued screaming "Run Lucy!" at the appearence of Mr. Tumnus.) But after finishing PC I was a little disturbed with a couple of things in the book:

1: The Dryads, and HammaDryads (you know the boy ones who aren't payed nearly as much attention as the girls :rolleyes: ) are not just Tree Spirits, but are constantly reffered to as 'gods' and 'godesses'. (enphisis little 'g') Now I have a serious problem with this as I belive their is "But one only, the living and True God." Unlike in ancient religions, Aslan is not the 'Chief God' as Zeus or Oden, but rather he is *the* God, and there should be no others save he. There is also a referance to the 'River God' who was chained by the bridge of Berunna.

2. The appearence of the 'Old Gods' were also rather unsettling for me. Bachus and Selenus make thier appearence within Naria in Pc, as well as referance made to them by Mr. Tumnus in LWW. They are both ancient Greek gods, and furthermore they are 'gods' of a well....let's just say, 'less then respected reputations.' As I have already said I have problems with the idea of more than one god, but the appearence of Greek gods (And I've read Classic Mythology staring them both, and they're not good guys even then) I really found distastful.

Now I respect Lewis emensly, and I love his work now more than ever (Currently I'm in the middle of Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and I am enjoying every moment of it) These were just the things that struck me as I finished up the first of the books, and I was wondering if anyone had anything to add/comment/disagree/debate about.

And I promise I won't throw Predestination into it, unless you really deserve it! :D
 
Wow, all this time, I thought I was the only one who was a little puzzled by his theology sometimes. First of all, yes, God is the One, the Only, True God, just as in Narnia, it's Aslan. If you've ever read Perelandra, which is awesome, you'll see some more of that god/goddess stuff. I think that Lewis actually might've hit the nail on the head in some regards. In Perelandra, we see Mars and Venus. They are described in amazing ways that Ransom can scarcely take in. The only way he can describe them, is saying that our versions of them are perversions which drastically fall short of the real thing. Please note that this whole time, we are dealling with human language (a finite thing) trying to describe heveanly things (infinite things), so we get to a point where our language can begin to confuse us, and even contradict itself. In Layman's terms, it can be really hard to put stuff into words sometimes. Lewis is suggesting that there are creatures that God might have created which are immensly beautiful, powerful, and awesome. More so than beasts, humans, even angels. The best word that I could think of, without sounding remotely blasphemous, would be "archangels". (in Perelandra, Venus and Mars talked about how our "god" of earth rebelled, i.e. Satan, a fallen angel [archangel, depending on your beliefs]). But I think Lewis might've wanted to go a step farther than archangels, but ran out of words to use that didn't sound blasphemous. We should remember, though, that our knowledge of God compared to God, is like a speck of dust compared to Everest. Though we may think we know a lot, we actually know didley squatt. I hope that makes sense.
 
Good reply, I'mbigger/you'reolder! I don't have to add anything, but I will anyway. :lol:
To really understand what Lewis means by "gods/goddesses," one would have to read The Space Trilogy (in That Hideous Strength, the "gods" or "archangels" of the planets descend to earth and Merlin is tempted to worship them, but Ransom, who has met them before, tells him not to, saying, "Have you forgotten that they are our fellow servants?").
When the Bible talks about having only one God, what it means is that we should worship no one (or nothing) but God. Lewis is very clear that we are not to worship the "gods" in his stories. He uses that word for lack of a better one, and I would argue that to him it simply means "immortal," "spirit," or "ruler."
I agree that his synthesism with Greek mythology can seem strange to us as American Christians, but we must remember that he was educated in classical (Greek and Roman) literature before becoming a Christian, and Tolkien at first introduced him to the gospel by calling it "the one true myth." He believed that the story of God's redemption of mankind was reflected in all mythology, and so he longed to "redeem" the mythology that he had grown up with by making it submissive to the "true myth," or the story of Christ and his work of redemption. Notice that though (as Graycloak pointed out) certain gods or mythical creatures he used in the CoN are not exactly "good" in Greek mythology, he shows them as having their place in Narnia as servants of Aslan. By this I think what he was trying to say was that the Greeks had perverted the ideals that God had instituted, but we cannot utterly reject the ideals just because some people didn't get them all right.
Okay, that was a really long explanation... more comments, anyone?
 
Back
Top