One thing that I’ve always found ironic is that those who claim to adhere most strictly to the Five Solas often seem to have a hard time letting their practice line up with their rhetoric. The one that seems to be the most abused and ignored is Sola Fide, or justification through faith alone. Now I’m sure they would deny it, but it seems to me they deny this doctrine by setting themselves as the arbiter of whom actually has faith and who doesn’t.
The latest victim of this arbitrary faith-check is none other than great Christian author and apologist, C.S. Lewis. In this article linked here, with the sad title Did C.S. Lewis Go to Heaven (which is steeped in gnosticism, by the way, but we won’t go there now), for reasons unknown, the author goes out of his way to throw accusations around that Lewis didn’t believe Scripture was inerrant (a loaded and debatable term anyway) and that he was a univeralist (a read of his little book The Great Divorce would show he wasn’t). Perhaps the most telling portion of this article is the following paragraph taken from Mere Christianity, in which the author is clearly claiming Lewis said something he didn’t say:
“Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads the Christian home is good actions, or Faith in Christ. I have no right really to speak on such a difficult question, but it does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary. A serious moral effort is the only thing that will bring you to the point where you throw up the sponge. Faith in Christ is the only thing to save you from despair at that point: and out of that Faith in Him ood actions must inevitably come.”
To which the author says this:
According to Lewis, both faith in Christ and “good actions” are necessary to lead a Christian “home.” The Apostle Paul says that this is not Christianity.
What?! Did the author read the actual paragraph he quoted? It doesn’t appear so. Obviously, Lewis is stating that anyone who tries to reach God through good works will fail and eventually come to the conclusion that faith is his only chance.
So perhaps the ironic thing is this. Those who claim to hold to Sola Fide, often throw all kinds of requirements on top faith. So let’s not just make “through faith alone” a slogan. Let’s live like we mean it. Let’s not add our own litmus tests on top of it for people to prove they have faith. In the end it’s not us who makes the call anyway.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
48 Comments(+Add)
I’m officially calling out Mr Robbins and the mysterious “editor” at CRN for an apology for causing a brother to stumble. I read that article title and said a word that I shouldn’t have.
Nice catch, Phil!
Of course, it’s not surprising, having already observed the same (lack of) literacy and (lack of) logic in the same sorts of deconstruction of Velvet Elvis.
[Now, I'm just waiting for the Chris P drive-by in 5...4...3...2...]
Obvious Contradiction no. 999 of the above article –
CS Lewis: “He uses material things like bread and wine to put the new life into us.”
Confused Theologian: “I shall not comment on Lewis’ metaphysical errors here, …First, he said the new life is spread by bodily acts like baptism and Holy Communion”
So what was Confused Theologian’s plenary and literal “Doctrine of Scripture” again???
brendt!
THAT was hilarious.
Thanks for the laugh.
We aim to please.
(You aim, too, please.)
…….1
I don’t “drive by” This is a comment section so I comment. I am not here to dialogue, and statements to the contrary, neither are any of you.
As for C.S. Lewis I see him as a non-entity in the biblical landscape.
As for gnosticics, they are apparently anyone who is not a restorationist or a rabbi.
Famous Quotes:
Nixon: “I am not a crook”
Clinton: “I did not touch that woman”
Palmero: “I have never taken steroids”
Chris P: “I don’t “drive by””
Kind of like looking down a row of cattle stalls that need cleaned…they’re all full of bull^&*t.
To use CS lewis as a theologian is quite unproductive. His life was changed by Christ, but his theology was a study in murky-dom. Who cares what CS Lewis believed, it only matters what Scripture teaches.
As for C.S. Lewis I see him as a non-entity in the biblical landscape.
Here, take my glasses. You obviously need them more than I do.
lol Brendt.
Gotta love it when people think life in Christ looks like an island unto themselves.
Speaking of reformation sayings, what about Semper Reformata? Or does that not apply after the 1500’s?
We should care what others think about Scripture. We stand on the shoulders of a long line of people who have mulled over the same issues we mull over today. Scripture was never meant to be interpreted alone but in community. We need each other to illuminate for us our blindspots and help us all discern the direction the Holy Spirit is leading Christ’s Church.
We should be grateful to thinkers like C.S. Lewis. We should even be grateful for thinkers like Arius or Montanus or Sabellius (and no, I do not think Lewis is a heretic). Even heretics are necessary for us to be able to hammer out our own understanding of scripture.
That’s probably true to some degree. He was more of Christian philosopher than theologian, which makes sense considering his background. I actually think that most of his theology is pretty clear. I think a lot of people get hung up on his actually writing style which is pretty dense, and, well, British.
I am not answerable for anyone but me. I read others, but I do not care what they believe. The others that “illuminate our blindspots” need me to illuminate their’s.
Everyone chooses their “former shoulders” in deference to their own persuasions. get alone, read the Bible diligently, pray and fast, and be led of the Spirit in truth. In some ways we all are heretics. (only me less than most)
Thanks Chris P… for setting me straight about myself.
Rick,
Whenever there is a discussion on politics you say it’s all evil and you have nothing to do with it. And now that we’re talking about the role of historical Christians you add ’bout the same.
More from the same paper…
Where to begin on this jumbled mess of logic?
OK – I got as far as two full pages and could not take any more of his writing. That paper is five years old and is suppose to be the beginning of a book. How do people find such crap to link to anyway?
Chris P,
Wow! Such clarity from a closeted emergent…
who knew your drive-by comments could be so penetrating? Aren’t all emergents unclear and wishy washy?
And you didn’t even call names, or copy and paste misused scripture passages.
You’re improving…or losing your game…depending on one’s perspective.
I wonder how you even take time to drive by here with your own purpose driven church’s theological problems:
Four Corners Community Church exists to win people to Jesus Christ and bring them to his eternal family through membership, to see them grow to Christ-like maturity, and equip them to effectively fulfill the mission of evengelizing the world and ministry to the Church to use whatever means necessary to fulfill his mandate for us in order to magnify his name.
Chris P, you are what you hate.
“Whenever there is a discussion on politics you say it’s all evil and you have nothing to do with it.”
Pretty close.
” And now that we’re talking about the role of historical Christians you add ’bout the same.”
Most everyone quotes as support the historical Christian of their liking, as if that lends either weight or substance to their view. And then, like this post aptly pointed out, you can trot out an historical Christian and dissect his quotes to prove you are right and he was wrong.
I tend to enjoy and be edified by devotional insights by these men and women. So I do not care what Spurgeon believes about baptism (etc., etc.), but I have been brought to tears by his words and insights into Christ and His kingdom. That is more actually what I mean about not really caring what others believe doctrinally, because in the end, we all can dredge up the “theologian” of our choice.
That is why I enjoy CS Lewis as it pertains to devotion and spiritual experience and not so much his oft confusing doctrinal musings. God has historically used men and women in mighty ways for His glory who appeared to be doctrinally unsound. I love reading the great revivals under Charles Finney, but I would never use his theology as support for anything.
Oh well…
Rick,
You and I have been down the “validity of history” trail before. Personally, I don’t think you actually live like one who doesn’t care what great minds in our past and present have thought about God. I think we should care what the saints who have gone on before us have thought for a few reasons:
1- For the obvious reason that as Christians it is our nature to care.
2- As ministers or teachers in the church it is extremely helpful to care about the doctrinal beliefs of others so that we can better understand where people are coming from and how we can best help them.
3- Having an appreciation for doctrinal growth (and entropy) throughout Church history heightens one’s awareness of the Holy Spirit’s leading.
4- As you have testified to, to glean great spiritual insight from Christians with whom we disagree doctrinally on some important issues ought to illumine the true place of “doctrine” in a life with God (and should humble us before any person or church declares doctrinally supremacy).
5- Caring about and knowing the beliefs of others helps to sharpen our own faith. For instance, it wasn’t until people began to care what someone like Arius was teaching and preaching that Christology really began to be hammered out.
Chad – I do care what you believe, not so much those who are dead and cannot engage. I also surmise that if men lived for 200 years, many of these past theologians would have changed some of their views, as have I. So to present their doctrinal views in the frozen monolith of history is both unfair to them and manipulative on some level.
When people quote a dead man as evidence of truth it rings hollow, just like when others quote others as evidence of their heresy. Without an opportunity to explain their views under legitimate questions, these men and women have been done a disservice. In some circles dead men are used as pawns with the fact that they were published and widely written, coupled with the fact they are dead, somehow being proffered as more substantive than we who are still alive and seeking the leading of the Spirit.
I would think that those of you who are more progressive and believe the church should continue to grow, would especially reject the way in which the views of dead men are portrayed as landmarks of truth.
I choose to enjoy their writings and revelations concerning their intimacy with Christ rather than their personal systematic theology.
Ihave to agree with this, but in saying that I cannot know for sure, and I am not even sure why this concerns the author.
I think the valid point the author of this article makes is that Evangelicalism has so liberalized that we accept anyone who calls themselves a Christian as one without examination or at face value. This is damaging, and can have negative impact on the church as a whole as watered down teachings from live authors who call themselves Christians (like Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren) are accepted without question and all too often lauded without research.
I don’t think the author made any valid points, honestly. He pretty much revealed that he was willing to lie to make his point, but other than that, his case has more holes in it than the average colander. If this is what passes for research on Christian sites, than they pretty much deserve their reputation for being anti-intellectual.
So, PB, are you actually siding with the author of this piece and saying that you don’t really believe that a person is saved through faith alone, but really by what they think about things like the innerrancy of Scripture and the scope of the atonement?
Nope, I believe we are saved by faith alone, and I do not see the purpose of questioning the faith of a dead person, but I do see value in rigorous research and debate of the writings of a live person. I think we accept writings and authors on the name Christian or on face value rather than asking hard questions and examining them in the light of scripture.
I agree completely. For example, when someone has set themselves up to lie, and slander the body of Christ, and act in such a way as to destroy any possibility for unity in the name of their own ministries, or even if they exercise such poor discernment that they have no way of knowing what the Christian they are damning is actually writing about, those people are not worshiping the same Jesus who prayed for the unity of his body in John 17, or who told his disciples they would be known by their love for one another.
#25 Bo Diaz,
Yep, I will pray for you,
I feel so badly that you feel the need to do what you accuse me and others of doing.
Gee Pastorboy, you must be feeling awfully convicted.
Do Biaz #27
huh?
And there flies the first insult/attack, 26-27 comments without strife, good job everyone. We’re making progress, we’ll that 50 comment mark yet!
btw, anything involving Chris P. doesn’t count, too easy, too often, too early every time.
Where was the insult, Aaron? Maybe we can still make it to 50!
Oh, it was that thing you said about your brother in Christ Chris P. That was kinda mean, wasn’t it?
Words fail me how arrogant, self-centered, and wrong I think this is…
As for the “liberalizing” of evangelicalism – in some cases I think it would be more accurate to say it is being released from Enlightenment thinking.
If God requires only faith with any aberration a deal breaker as it applies to eternal life, then many people are in trouble. Those that include baptism, those that include the Lord’s Supper, and many other denominational anomalies will block millions from heaven.
But if God’s grace can cover some degree of doctrinal deception, especially concerning those particular salvation elements, then we will see them in eternity.
#32
I think this is wrong too Neil, for I do not think that everything he wrote was supposed to be Evangelical doctrine. Again, I see no purpose in the question. He is dead it is too late.
But, what about those who live? Should we not do more research and digging into scripture to see if these popular Evangelical/emergent thinkers are right??? before we buy into and hang on every word that they say?
What scholarship… basing your interpretation on one big argument from silence. So, the fact that Lewis did not talk about this doctrine, coupled with the fact the he said “I have not talked about this doctrine” means he denied the doctrine?
I think this is wrong too Neil, for I do not think that
yes, of course… but let’s not cling to a modern enlightenment based epistemology as if it were somehow the most biblical
Actually, the nihil obstat indicated he was trying to validate or line up his position on justification by faith with not only the Catholic point of view, but with the other christian denominations/theological point of view, so that nothing would hinder their communication….
Wondering if CS Lewis was the original emergent..:)
I realize that if I tried to quote and point out the errors in logic, the misinterpretations this man makes of Lewis, and his own confusion of theological issues – I’d end up pretty much quoting the whole paper.
I think it was just seized upon by the Arm-chair Discerners because it a) is judgemental in nature, b) bursts a few bubbles, and c) blames things on people being liberalized…
It’s one thing to do research on various theological positions and look at how they line up with the authors’ original intents in Scripture, but it’s another thing to come out and say that someone “didn’t go to heaven” based on this “research”.
The sad thing is that in this particular the dude does such shoddy work that the only thing he exposed is his own ignorance.
Sorry about this…
PB, regarding #26
You have lied… You stated many times you let comments on your blogs and yet mine do not go through when you write lies about my theology….
So stop lying about me and repent.
Again, sorry about all this, but PB had written something about me in his shadow blog of this blog and then calls people liars here when he himself lies continuously… he is on sick fellow who needs to come to a faith in the Living Christ and forsake his sinful ways of using the worlds methods to harm those he hates.
iggy
Now going back to lurking mode…
I’ve read a lot of CS Lewis’ books and several biographies about him.
It’s been a long time, so I don’t remember details. But I do remember the main impression I had of him: he was someone who came to the end of himself and realized that there was Someone so infinitely greater eagerly waiting to have fellowship with him, in spite of his unworthiness.
Iggy,
Seriously… “come to faith in the living Christ…”?
Neil
I think you are correct as far as you take it. I believe Lewis knew this and also knew the Greater Someone through his faith in Christ.
Iggy,
I moderate comments, and allow those who disagree through unless they are vulgur or off-topic. Your comment was probably one of the two.
This is what Luther believed about baptism:
Luther believed baptism could save WITHOUT faith by the “baptizee”. So in effect, Luther did not believe in faith alone – is he in heaven?
PB,
My comments were neither of those… you are just a liar and like to slander others…
Please I plead the blood of Jesus that you stop your lying ways! Stop hurting your brothers and sisters in Christ for His sake…
iggy
Neil,
One who keeps on sinning you know like slander and lying, cannot be saved… one cannot continue in sin and be saved…
“1 John 3: 9. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.”
“Romans 1:29-32 29. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips ,
30. slanderers , God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31. they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless .
32. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. “
I see PB hitting almost the whole list in his hatred against others… and that he continues in sin I now wonder if his conversion was a real one or a false one.
iggy
I don’t stop by often these days, but boy am I glad I did today!