His teaching prove only one reality: the greatest compromiser of Christian truth. He can surely be called apostate. In this article it is our intention to show just this to be the sure conviction of much examination.
A clear case of compromise.
Let us start by considering what is said in the introduction of his popular work: 'Mere Christianity' there we read:
Now let us see if we can get this thought straight in our minds. In the process of getting this work out in the public he sent the draft of the second book, called: 'what Christians believe' to a number of clergymen from different denominations and one from Catholicism as well: with the intention of 'asking for their criticisms.' And that, of course, is the common practise to have a select number of people give advice if necessary or give it their approval.The danger dearly was that i should put forward as common Christianity anything that was peculiar to the Church of England or (worse still) to myself. i tried to guard against this by sending the original script of what is now Book ii to four clergymen (anglican, methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic) and asking for their criticism. The methodist thought i had not said enough about Faith, and the Roman Catholic thought i had gone rather too far about the comparative unimportance of theories in explanation of the atonement. Otherwise all five of us were agreed. i did not have the remaining books similarly "vetted" because in them, though differences might arise among Christians, these would be differences between individuals or schools of thought, not between denominations.
But let not the main issue slip on by without it being made known. What does clergy of Christian denominations and a clergy of Catholicism have in common? A very important question indeed. From the reactions, we can gain some insight into what played as the fundamental issue: a lack of clarity. Now while it must be said apart from the Presbyterian (which we do not have his reaction) the other three can be known as easy pleasers as they are in many ways compromised like CS Lewis. Let us not forget the many battles that we faced to give us our heritage.
This is not a matter of preference or subjective likes or dislike as one of Lewis disciples has said 'the Catholic view on Justification gives him great pause.' That is to say, that it's like have a bad stomach pains. Justification by Faith Alone "imputation" and "substitution" are such foundational truths of the Protestant Reformation that this kind of down play is just an attack on the Biblical Faith. And an out right attack at that. Let us now move onto see what else that this man has to state on such momentous truths.
Who is God according to Mere Christianity?
Our first issue is to allow him to speak for himself on the matter of other faiths. He states the following on page 35:
I have been asked to tell you what Christians believe, and i am going to begin by telling you one thing that Christians do not need to believe. if you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. ..... If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. .... But, of course, 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: but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others.Now this is a very troubling set of statements made by this man. So taking on board this logic that 'a christian does not necessarily have to believe something is wrong' that leads me to ask this important question: Where does Jesus stand in this situation who unequivocally states all other paths are false and heading to destruction (John 14:7; Matthew 7:13-14)? Or are to leave out the truth of Christ being the only way to salvation from our witness such as we see the first Christians in Acts 4:12? Who is right or wrong, Christ and the apostles and disciples or CS Lewis? Both cannot right for that would be an impossible position to find oneself in.
And the reasoning only gets worse when he says being Christian can mean that 'you don't need to see Christianity being right and others being wrong.' Therefore, are we being told to say universalism (the idea that all roads lead to the same place) is true? Is there any other way to read such a statement and arrive at any other conclusion? As I do not see one from this reasoning.
And if all views even within a religion are correct as we saw from the introduction when he was trying please man, does that means that the Apostle Paul was wrong when he dealt with the false teachers in Corinthians and Galatians? How about Peter and Jude who deal with the same threat? What about John who tells us to 'test the spirit' was he in error? Who is right?
Clearly this man who does not have the same Spirit as the Apostles working in him as they do is a dangerous man to even listen too. Let us only consult that which is God-breathed to come to a real sound position. It states:
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (Galatians 1:6-9)Now the issue that we currently contemplating is far worse than what Paul is dealing with. For those teachers had the basics right but perverted the application or living. In this man's case, however, what we are faced with is the stark reality that there is no gospel. It just pure moralised teaching and no gospel. Now where do I draw this from? Well his words are all I need to critique.
For he said this: being a Christ does not mean that you are right as Christian and the other is wring not being a Christian. The only real deduction is this: his brand of whatever it may be can not be said to either wrong nor right. But in reality he is most definitely incorrect. As the Christ claim is that only in Christ can one be saved (and none else). Let us not rush ahead of ourselves as there is still a more basic and fundamental issue to tackle, tied in with this particular point is the fact that if no one religion according to his logic can be established being correct. Then no one view of God can be established as being correct either.
And this is precisely what he goes onto state in these words:
Now this is a vital statement from this man. In saying at the beginning of this chapter that Christianity is no different from any other religion; though in his own words. He now gives us these two great divisions of how people view God. Let us stop for a moment and sum this up. The first camp: the religious pick and mix. The second camp: the non-religious believer in some kind of god. But it what follows on the heels of this that can be useful here: 'The first of these views — the one that thinks God beyond good and evil — is called Pantheism. it was held by the great Prussian philosopher Hegel and, as far as i can understand them, by the Hindus. The other view is held by Jews, Mohammedans and Christians.'The first big division of humanity is into the majority, who believe in some kind of God or gods, and the minority who do not. On this point, Christianity lines up with the majority — lines up with ancient Greeks and Romans, modern savages, Stoics, Platonists, Hindus, Mohammedans, etc., against the modern Western European materialist.
now i go on to the next big division. People who all believe in God can be divided according to the sort of God they believe in. There are two very different ideas on this subject One of them is the idea that He is beyond good and evil. We humans call one thing good and another thing bad. But according to some people that is merely our human point of view. ..... The other and opposite idea is that God is quite definitely "good" or "righteous." a God who takes sides, who loves love and hates hatred, who wants us to behave in one way and not in another.
Let us ask then: what view of God is the correct one according to his logic? And more importantly is the fact that he still lumps the Islamic faith with Christian and Judaism. When it is far from being identical. It is in fact, demonic in nature. If he cannot make a decision on which of these faiths present God correctly; then why do we trust that he is a Christian. He is universalist.
So we have considered the view of God.
How does the Law fair up in Mere Christianity?
From examining this man's 'Mere Christianity' it is hard to get a position on this matter as the Law of God is not really dealt with in any manner. However, there is enough in the first book to put forth something of his thought to really critique. Let us begin with these vital words from page 8:
These, then, are the two points i wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.
Now this is a rather important section to consider at length. The point as far as I can tell is that CS Lewis see law of God as a thing to do with the nature of man rather than something external to man, given by God. He states in the 1st chapter called "The Law of human nature" the following thing: 'now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law
of nature....Law of human nature.' And what is this: well in the above section we can deduce; and at that, correctly that it some kind of internal detector of what is right or wrong. But that in and of itself is nothing more than the human conscience; which if the sin is so bad it can be seared. It can be come polluted and infected. But this again has been misidentified by CS Lewis as the "Moral Law" as we see in the second chapter.
On page 9 he says: 'Some of the letters i have had show that a good many people find it difficult to understand just what this Law of Human nature, or moral Law, or Rule of decent Behaviour is.' This is a troubling thing that this internal detector of wrong and right which is the conscience is seen as 'the Moral Law.' And this can be a very dangerous thing to do at an rate.
What then is the 'Moral Law' as historic Christian teaching has laid it out in 'The Moral Law: it's place in the scripture and it's relevance for today.' On page 23:
Now CS Lewis is thoroughly incorrect to say what he did. Where it came from, no one knows for sure? But it would appear that it is baggage from his Atheistic past. Nothing Christian in essence can lead on to this conclusion. Now as if this were not bad enough; CS Lewis jumps one step too far.
On page 25 of his book 'Mere Christianity' he states the following:
First, there is a out right deceptive spirit in his words. This can be seen in that he is trying to disguise his false teaching with Christian veneer: 'Moral Law' this is something that can be seen in many modern variants of this philosophy that is falsely named 'Christianity' it is anything but it. It is a bland of many view points; atheism; pantheism; agnosticism to name a few.
Second, there is a subtle but very real danger in the confusion of terms 'God' 'something that is directing the universe' and then 'appears in me as a moral law.' What can deduced from this: well, this, simply that this thing he is describing in these various terms is the human conscience. And he believes that is a principle or a god. Very slippery language indeed.
But he was correct in one respect. All he truly has 'is a something'; but that cannot be transformed into the God of the bible. Such would be a chasm; a leap in the dark. An illogical manoeuvre. Again, just to make his point clear that this approach does not lead automatically to Christian truth; he, in the fifth chapter called 'we have a cause to be uneasy.' Start with several points; one where he denies the usefulness of the big picture or having a clear monopoly on what is truth.
He then states this in the second point on page 29, which further solidify this whole 'mere Christianity' is better understood as 'No Christianity' makes this point:
And this is a great danger in this matter in hand. This 'Mere Christianity' has been adapted into a 'Mere theology' and 'Mere Apologetics' and that latter one has been the approach of many apologists of late. And it is typically seen in the 'classic or evidential apologetics' camp. It can be witnessed in such a person as William Lane Craig (WLC), a Christian Philosopher. But getting back to the issue at hand, this approach can only end in a huge disaster.
How does the great salvation fair up in Mere Christianity?
In presenting these things as merely historical facts, may prove the historicity of them but not the theological underpinning. We must bare that in mind at all times. He continues on to present the fact that when he became "a Christian" things were very different. But that is not the issue.
On page 54 he states this following thing:
As Isaiah 53:9-12; Matthew 20:28; John 10:14-18; Romans 5:18-21; 6:3-8; Ephesians 2:11-15; 2 Corinthians 5:21 and many others all demonstrate. The P.S.A is thoroughly biblical in nature. But the same truth is found in what Apostle Peter has written in his 1 st epistle and third chapter and 18 verse concerning the nature of Christ being our Substitute and taking our place in being punished.
Let us come to the next issue that needs to discussed here is the doctrine of the New Man in Christ. On page 218 we are told:
Let us spell out what the doctrine of New Man actually is. First, it is a work of renovation that God does from within the person; You still are the same person you were before from an out ward and physical view point. It is the sinful inner man that is the subject of this momentous change. Second, It is a vital work whereby one is admitted and permitted entry to the Kingdom of God. As John 3 tells us. It is spiritual renewal which cannot be seen in light of a physical activity such as what it is being likened too here (even one that is based on human supposition and not the truth). This at least is a brief stated position concerning this glorious truth.
What remains to be seen in this. Is the question of whether in raising this as a illustration of it: did CS Lewis actually believed in evolution? Such a standpoint can no longer be made known.
Let us consider the step he offers:
The second thing that he states is this following statement:
These two issue are vital truths that need to be made known to all Christians; there is the first one an outward declaration based on Christ's work before the Father; man is seen as just. Then the second one an inward work where the Spirit completely renovates the person. And both are clear maligned in this book as being non-foundational issue of the Faith. But while these are the main issue to contend for here; they are never alone as there are other vital doctrines to note. And all of them flow from the believer's union with Christ that is central issue.
On page 9 he says: 'Some of the letters i have had show that a good many people find it difficult to understand just what this Law of Human nature, or moral Law, or Rule of decent Behaviour is.' This is a troubling thing that this internal detector of wrong and right which is the conscience is seen as 'the Moral Law.' And this can be a very dangerous thing to do at an rate.
What then is the 'Moral Law' as historic Christian teaching has laid it out in 'The Moral Law: it's place in the scripture and it's relevance for today.' On page 23:
It is correct to put it in the following form: the Moral Law though not the decalogue itself; but is the fundamental and necessary holiness that underlies it; and defines it as being "moral." In other words, it is moral; it is holy not because it is own worth but because of the one whom gave it. The bottom line issue here is that 'moral law' is not some innate to man; but in fact, it is an external thing that derives it Moral character from the very being of God.However, the obvious Scriptural way to ascertain what constitutes the moral law is to consider what is found in the Ten Commandments. When the Lord took account of the moral and spiritual ignorance of the covenant people whom he had redeemed from Egypt, and when he considered the role he wished them to play in the furtherance of his covenant purposes, he did not leave them to establish the norms for their conduct by inference from what they knew of the past or by general reasoning from what they perceived of their own constitution. He was pleased to deal with the situation directly. He informed them once more of his moral law. It is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments, which are also known as the Decalogue.
Now CS Lewis is thoroughly incorrect to say what he did. Where it came from, no one knows for sure? But it would appear that it is baggage from his Atheistic past. Nothing Christian in essence can lead on to this conclusion. Now as if this were not bad enough; CS Lewis jumps one step too far.
On page 25 of his book 'Mere Christianity' he states the following:
From what he says here that he 'is not yet within a hundred miles of the God of Christian theology' this is not even helpful. It could lead some to think that they are very close to Christianity truth; when in fact, they are in a completely different realm to it. Perhaps more closely paralleling a pantheistic system. There are several very crucial things to note in this statement.Do not think i am going faster than i really am. i am not yet within a hundred miles of the God of Christian theology. all i have got to is a Something which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when i do wrong.
First, there is a out right deceptive spirit in his words. This can be seen in that he is trying to disguise his false teaching with Christian veneer: 'Moral Law' this is something that can be seen in many modern variants of this philosophy that is falsely named 'Christianity' it is anything but it. It is a bland of many view points; atheism; pantheism; agnosticism to name a few.
Second, there is a subtle but very real danger in the confusion of terms 'God' 'something that is directing the universe' and then 'appears in me as a moral law.' What can deduced from this: well, this, simply that this thing he is describing in these various terms is the human conscience. And he believes that is a principle or a god. Very slippery language indeed.
But he was correct in one respect. All he truly has 'is a something'; but that cannot be transformed into the God of the bible. Such would be a chasm; a leap in the dark. An illogical manoeuvre. Again, just to make his point clear that this approach does not lead automatically to Christian truth; he, in the fifth chapter called 'we have a cause to be uneasy.' Start with several points; one where he denies the usefulness of the big picture or having a clear monopoly on what is truth.
He then states this in the second point on page 29, which further solidify this whole 'mere Christianity' is better understood as 'No Christianity' makes this point:
This is a very intriguing statement and argument. Let us note the fact that by now in the first book and the 5th chapter; and what we are told is that He has not arrived at 'the God of any actual religion, still less the God of that particular religion called Christianity.' That is a startling and very troubling statement. For as we know any work that claims to be a Christian work; it is important that it start with the God of the bible and Christian foundations; we could compare this to any other work such as this one: 'the institutes of the Christian religion' by John Calvin. And this book has not done such a thing. It in fact, starts with man and ends with man.Then, secondly, this has not yet turned exactly into a "religious jaw." We have not yet got as far as the God of any actual religion, still less the God of that particular religion called Christianity. We have only got as far as a Some- body or Something behind the moral Law. We are not taking anything from the Bible or the Churches, we are trying to see what we can find out about this Somebody on our own steam.
And this is a great danger in this matter in hand. This 'Mere Christianity' has been adapted into a 'Mere theology' and 'Mere Apologetics' and that latter one has been the approach of many apologists of late. And it is typically seen in the 'classic or evidential apologetics' camp. It can be witnessed in such a person as William Lane Craig (WLC), a Christian Philosopher. But getting back to the issue at hand, this approach can only end in a huge disaster.
How does the great salvation fair up in Mere Christianity?
Now we enter in on the most important subject of the whole bible; and indeed, that of Christian truth, the issue of salvation found in Christ. Our particular focus will be on Justification by Faith and all its subsidiary aspects; and then the New Man and all it's subsidiary aspects.
On page 53 we are told this about his "pre-Christian" days what he thought on Justification:
and now, what was the purpose of it all? What did He come to do? Well, to teach, of course; but as soon as you look into the new testament or any other Christian writing you will find they are constantly talking about something different — about His death and His coming to life again. it is obvious that Christians think the chief point of the story lies here. They think the main thing He came to earth to do was to suffer and be killed.In these words, we find what can be boiled down to the 'minimal fact' approach or the 'basic elements' which has become very popular in Christianity today. It is important to see that while these two elements are essential Christian propositions; it is not enough. I agree with Dr James White on this matter, that when presenting the faith we must present these things but never stop there. So in reality what we must do before presenting these truths is ask: What do these things mean? What do they entail? What is it the significance of them? Then we may get somewhere.
In presenting these things as merely historical facts, may prove the historicity of them but not the theological underpinning. We must bare that in mind at all times. He continues on to present the fact that when he became "a Christian" things were very different. But that is not the issue.
On page 54 he states this following thing:
Well now. That all seem fine. Even in pointing out that the Church has believed and held to some unfounded theories about the Atonement in the past. All good to know. But it is what comes later that is troubling. Note what he offers up the prime theory that he take a strong dislike too; even calling it 'silly':The central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start Theories as to how it did this are another matter. a good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work.
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. That is what has to be believed.
He is building up his case against these 'theories' and what does he single out as being a foolish human theory:any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. all the same, some of these theories are worth looking at.
The one most people have heard is the one i mentioned before — the one about our being let off because Christ had volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. if God was pre- pared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? and what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead? none at all that i can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense. On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not.It is this kind statement that lead us to great concern. We need to consider the fact that He did not have a very high view of the atonement at all. Let us note the clear stated thought: CS Lewis does believe in a substitutionary view but not the reformers doctrine that was on our behalf. If it not clear in this them see the words that he states at a point before this about the "theories" he said 'any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us.' Or even in this statement:
Theories about Christ's death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works. Christians would not all agree as to how important these theories are. my own church — the Church of England — does not lay down any one of them as the right one.That is a very telling statement. He says that 'theories' are useless and not helpful (now I understand that in many case when they are not biblical). What one does he highlight as being the most deplorable? We have seen it: 'the one most people have heard is the one i mentioned before...' that being the reformed doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Which is the biblical one.
As Isaiah 53:9-12; Matthew 20:28; John 10:14-18; Romans 5:18-21; 6:3-8; Ephesians 2:11-15; 2 Corinthians 5:21 and many others all demonstrate. The P.S.A is thoroughly biblical in nature. But the same truth is found in what Apostle Peter has written in his 1 st epistle and third chapter and 18 verse concerning the nature of Christ being our Substitute and taking our place in being punished.
Let us come to the next issue that needs to discussed here is the doctrine of the New Man in Christ. On page 218 we are told:
In this statement we find one the most important statements in regard to what he believes concerning the New Man doctrine. He states that 'a modern man can understand the Christian idea best if he takes it in connection with Evolution.' Now it may not be easy to note the problem; therefore, allow us to break it down: New Man (Regeneration and New Birth) according to Him can be likened to Evolution (man made myth). That is the issue of concern.
Perhaps a modern man can understand the Christian idea best if he takes it in connection with Evolution. Everyone now knows about Evolution (though, of course, some educated people disbelieve it): everyone has been told that man has evolved from lower types of life. Consequently, people often wonder "What is the next step? When is the thing beyond man going to appear?" im- aginative writers try sometimes to picture this next step — the "Superman" as they call him; but they usually only succeed in picturing someone a good deal nastier than man as we know him and then try to make up for that by stick- ing on extra legs or arms. But supposing the next step was to be something even more different from the earlier steps than they ever dreamed of? and is it not very likely it would be?
Let us spell out what the doctrine of New Man actually is. First, it is a work of renovation that God does from within the person; You still are the same person you were before from an out ward and physical view point. It is the sinful inner man that is the subject of this momentous change. Second, It is a vital work whereby one is admitted and permitted entry to the Kingdom of God. As John 3 tells us. It is spiritual renewal which cannot be seen in light of a physical activity such as what it is being likened too here (even one that is based on human supposition and not the truth). This at least is a brief stated position concerning this glorious truth.
What remains to be seen in this. Is the question of whether in raising this as a illustration of it: did CS Lewis actually believed in evolution? Such a standpoint can no longer be made known.
Let us consider the step he offers:
The new man is not transferred through sexual reproductivity.This at least is one thing that we can agree with. But it is still not given a detailed understanding of this matter. However, conception and birth can be used as a way to reveal the manner in which it is brought about; and in fact, the Lord uses it in John 3: 1-8. It is used in a few other places too.
The second thing that he states is this following statement:
The New Man is very closely paralleled to human philosophical evolution.This is a very serious statement to contend with. He is saying that 'one animal transformed into another one' is the very same thing as being renewed and renovated in the inner man by the Spirit. It is a sheer blasphemous suggestion. In the process he makes this absolute false assertion:
Such a statement is heresy. It is, in fact, an arminian pet line. It cannot be supported by the scripture nor any kind of reasoning. Let us use the above analogy of a human birth to make this point clear; a Child can not choose to be born just the same it can not refuse being born. And in the same light, Regeneration is something you do not work up in you; it is something that take place in you by means of the operation of the Holy Spirit. And that is the solemn truth. On top of this, The new birth and regeneration are not 'offered' it is something that the Spirit freely does in the elect. All whom God works in will not reject it; they will come to faith.but it is voluntary in the sense that when it is offered to us we can refuse it.
The New man is compared to natural order.This is one of the most egregious error that can be made. He is comparing the act of being re-creation to the natural order of the universe. He state the following on page 222 of Mere Christianity:
This step is taken at a different speed from the previous ones. Compared with the development of man on this planet, the diffusion of Christianity over the human race seems to go like a flash of lightning — for two thousand years is almost nothing in the history of the universe.'How does one even begin to compare a glorious act such being recreated; being made new to development of the universe and humans. It cannot be done. There is absolutely no justification for doing this; none whatsoever. And this man is held up as someone to look to gain much understanding of the Faith. A more appropriate statement on him would be to tell the truth; he was compromised as is any person who adheres to this teaching. Beware of this.
The new man though being new can revert back to being the old man.I kid you not. I am lost for words when it comes to such a false and foolish statement. But allow us to see it in his own wording:
There the statement is. And the only way that it can be rightly understood is that he believed that though there is similarity between natural birth and divine rebirth; there is one huge difference. And what is that difference? Natural births a child has no choice in the matter of being birthed; whereas apparently supernatural re-birth when it takes place; you have a choice. You can go back to the old sinful ways. How can it be that such an egregious error can be perpetrated and not be checked? This is not how the Spirit works in Rebirth (Regeneration and New Birth); He is sovereign and the act will be completed and the person will come to faith in Christ. And finally, there is upon it being done no way to undo it.But of course it differs from an ordinary birth in one important respect. in an ordinary birth the baby has not much choice: here it has. i wonder what an ordinary baby would do if it had the choice. it might prefer to stay in the dark and warmth and safety of the womb. For of course it would think the womb meant safety. That would be just where it was wrong; for if it stays there it will die.
These two issue are vital truths that need to be made known to all Christians; there is the first one an outward declaration based on Christ's work before the Father; man is seen as just. Then the second one an inward work where the Spirit completely renovates the person. And both are clear maligned in this book as being non-foundational issue of the Faith. But while these are the main issue to contend for here; they are never alone as there are other vital doctrines to note. And all of them flow from the believer's union with Christ that is central issue.
The arminian Idol: Free Will
Now we come to what I believe to be the most deadly idea and teaching that has infected the Church and seeks to bring great disharmony to all the believers; It is vital to see it as it really should be, but what is it that has done this damage? The pagan philosophical stand point that says 'Man has a free will.' But now let us see what CS Lewis has said on this issue.
On pages 47-48 of his Mere Christianity the following statement:
it is probably the same in the universe. God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; i cannot. if a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. and free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. a world of automata — of creatures that worked like machines — would hardly be worth creating.
We must note that it is the only statement in this regard. But even so, just this one statement provides us with the operating principle behind his whole view point. And that is man must be free. And indeed, this one statement provides us with enough to ask some critical questions.
First, how do he define this idea of 'free-will'? Well, just as most arminians and non reformed believers do. The 'ability to choose between two alternatives.' But this once again, happens to a confusion of terms. It is merely a modern day philosophical understanding (man's opinion) as laid down in dictionaries and so on. But that is just a common misunderstanding of the term. Second, how does the bible define 'free-will'? Well, it does not because the bible is God word and is theological in nature. Any biblical presentation of man will not be primarily philosophical; but rather in a theological stand-point. And we will consider that in a moment. Third, what is 'free-will' as it truly should be understood? It is the ability to do as one please apart from and independent of any internal or external restraints and constraints. In other words, man is an autonomous creature and is a law unto himself; self willed and self governed. That is the true definition of free-will. So does man have a free-will?
Let us consult John Calvin (the great reformer) same can be found in Martin Luther's 'Bondage of the will' but we will consult the institutes to get a good picture:
At present it is necessary only to remember, that man (that is: Adam), at his first creation, was very different from all his posterity; who, deriving their origin from him after he was corrupted, received a hereditary taint. At first every part of the soul was formed to rectitude. There was soundness of mind and freedom of will to choose the good. If any one objects that it was placed, as it were, in a slippery position, because its power was weak, I answer, that the degree conferred was sufficient to take away every excuse. For surely the Deity could not be tied down to this condition, - to make man such, that he either could not or would not sin.
There is a grand picture: before the fall, man had a freedom in his very nature to do certain things and not others. But after the fall, that freedom was lost. And as a result, his whole existence has become tainted by sin to the point of corruption and depravity. Therefore, there is a slavery in which man in his natural state is bound. But let us ask this following question and an important one: Where in the scriptures does one see such a position as this?
The short answer is that it is in almost every book of the New Testament. But let us see some proof:
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?” Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are Abraham’s descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. I speak the things which I have seen ]with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father.” (John 8:31-38)
Peter said to Him, “Explain the parable to us.” Jesus said, “Are you still lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.” (Matthew 15:15-20)
As Christians, our position is that the bible must be the centre of all our thinking; it is the very basis of all we believe and how we live. And it is no less vital in informing us what man truly is as to his unregenerate state: Here we are told that the man who sin 'is slave of that sin'- to put in an easier form he is a slave because he sins; but he sins due to his prior condition as a slave by nature. It is wise to take note of the depiction of the life of a sinner as Paul lays out in Ephesians 2:1-3 at this point. What does the very nature of slave to sin cause in his very outward living to be like? The Matthew text makes it clear. He is one that is vile by disposition and his living will in some manner reflect it: 'For out of the mouth come from the heart (the human nature) come evil thought, murders, adulteries, fornication, thefts, false witness, slander.' A rather full on picture.
Now while CS Lewis and other arminians will boldly lip concern of human depravity; there theological positions are completely against such a view. For they believe that man is not completely effected by the fall; that there is some good in him. He can choose to come to God (which is unbiblical).
Jesus' words are more than enough for most Christians; but for some they are never enough to establish this matter. The other writers of the scripture are just adamant on this issue how corrupt sinners as we shall have a opportunity to examine:
And what do we learn from Paul? simply the same truth as John recorded in his 8th chapter which Jesus Himself said. And the Master is always correct. Man is enslaved to sin as a result of what Adam done; and due to that is just what God tells us in Romans 5. You sin because you are a slave to a sinful and depraved nature. Let us see two other witness to substantiate this matter:
Therefore, CS Lewis' philosophical belief regarding man is not something that he could begin to substantiate from the biblical testimony; and neither can his students of the 'Mere Christianity' school of thought. We do not have the right to present the mere basic facts as if they are the whole Christian truth; we present the full biblical testimony to whom the Triune God is as holy being. Whom Man is as a slave of sin. And what is their greatest need is salvation. And where that is to be found. No dancing around the philosophical idea of arguments that merely pointing to 'the proponderance of evidence leads to the position of a possible God.'
Never substitute Christian truth for a this bankrupt philosophical stance that we can reason unbelievers to the point of accepting some type of God, as it can never lead to the Triune God of the biblical revelation.
Jesus' words are more than enough for most Christians; but for some they are never enough to establish this matter. The other writers of the scripture are just adamant on this issue how corrupt sinners as we shall have a opportunity to examine:
Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience [k]resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. (Romans 6: 16-18)
For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. (Titus 3:3)Here, then, we have our first set of witnesses come from the pen of Paul (his writings) as breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and men wrote as they were borne by the Spirit of God (2 Peter 1:19-21). Therefore, it goes without saying that these states and others found in Paul Writings should be taken as the divine diagnoses of man problem and are worthy to be taken as the highest and most trust worthiest and truest statements with regards to man. And no man's philosophising on the issue can trump and out weigh God diagnosis of man.
And what do we learn from Paul? simply the same truth as John recorded in his 8th chapter which Jesus Himself said. And the Master is always correct. Man is enslaved to sin as a result of what Adam done; and due to that is just what God tells us in Romans 5. You sin because you are a slave to a sinful and depraved nature. Let us see two other witness to substantiate this matter:
But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. (James 1: 14-16)
These are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved. For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved. (2 Peter 2: 17-19)Note these statements from James and Peter are very forceful in their description of the natural man in his sinful state. When James uses such a term as 'carried away' or Peter uses such a term as 'driven' and 'overcome' it is to suggest and speak to the whole matter of what is true of man before he sins in deed (in a outwardly sense) . He, by nature, is enslaved to sin. There is no other way to understand these matters; one sins and another listens to false teaching because they have not been taught correctly. Yes. but even more so, because they are already enslaved.
Therefore, CS Lewis' philosophical belief regarding man is not something that he could begin to substantiate from the biblical testimony; and neither can his students of the 'Mere Christianity' school of thought. We do not have the right to present the mere basic facts as if they are the whole Christian truth; we present the full biblical testimony to whom the Triune God is as holy being. Whom Man is as a slave of sin. And what is their greatest need is salvation. And where that is to be found. No dancing around the philosophical idea of arguments that merely pointing to 'the proponderance of evidence leads to the position of a possible God.'
Never substitute Christian truth for a this bankrupt philosophical stance that we can reason unbelievers to the point of accepting some type of God, as it can never lead to the Triune God of the biblical revelation.
Conclusion
There is only one conclusion in all of this, CS Lewis has no place in our thinking as He was very compromised in all his teachings. He is clearly no friend to the Protestant Faith as he adopted practice of the Catholic church and rejected Protestant truths.
