Lewis on Atonement

Lewis did not call the idea silly and immoral. Please do not take one clause out of one sentence and take it as if it is his whole position. The thrust of the passage is quite the opposite.

He starts out saying that that substitutionary atonement is NOT as silly and immoral to him as it first appeared. Then he goes on to say that his point was not about substitutionary atonement at all. The quote, in context, in no way is stating Lewis' current position on atonement.

Is the man not allowed to change his mind? Even from when he was a non-believer? I insist, sir, that by taking the statement "not as silly or immoral as it first appeared" and making it to say "silly and immoral" is wrenching the passage from its moorings.

I'm done with this conversation.

 

What's wrong with it. It leaves the "anti-Lewis" crowd without a pot to cook in.

Exactly. He was talking about the stupid idea that Christ's atonement gives man a license to sin. It is, indeed, silly, and I unfortunately know too many who think this way.

 

some just look for like signs of their own tracks and all the sign they can read are those of their own track.

The trouble with this tracking is that a tracker soon begins to go in circles, either short circular motions or long sweeping circular movement, either come to the same end, right back where the track started.

Why did Jesus say the following:

Lu 12:48 (KJV) But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few [stripes]. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Brother Dallas

here is my opinion now, so take it or leave it:

It is much sweeter to read and study the Word of God depending solely upon His Spirit to teach rather than to seek after a denominational approval through Bible College or Seminary training.

It seems to me (remember my opinion) that since Baptists have started building such schools and hallowing their names that they have grown more and more like those of the past who gleefully burned, drowned, and otherwise mutilated believers because of their simple faith in the testimony of Christ and standing upon it.

Did Paul not eat in the shambles? Did he not say he could eat at the table from a meal that was offered to an idol?

Why?
Because we know there is no such idol, there is but one Living God.

Did Paul say to ask questions or did he say to give thanks and glory unto God for His providence?

Then if one of that number says to you that these things are offered unto idols then you refuse to eat not for your own sake but for the sake of the one who is weak in faith or who is an unbeliever.

But here we go, small circular steps, tracking our own giant footprint and thereby unable to see the trail we ought to be following.

 

So what does that have to do with the fact that Lewis flatly rejects the fact that Christ suffered the punishment for our sins, calling that idea "silly" and "immoral". Does being Anglican make one less responsible for believing the truth?

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Obviously you haven't watched te TLWW.

 

Come now!

Lewis did say he found the idea of Christ dying as a punishment for our sins to be "silly" and "immoral". He does say that when he wrote "Mere Christianity" he didn't find it so silly and immoral as he once had, but he absolutely did not say that he had embraced the idea and later on states again that he found the idea silly.

In giving his view of what it means that Christ died for us he plainly says that he didn't take it as Christ being punished for our sins. His exact words are:

"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 polic-court sense. On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assests paying it on behalf of someone who has not. Or if you take 'paying the penalty,' not in the sense of being punished [emphasis added], but in the more general sense of 'standing the racket' or 'footing the bill,' then, of course, it is a matter of common experience that, when one person has got himself into a hole, the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind friend."

Lewis thus guts the gospel of Christ and goes on to offer his insipid and foggy theory - which is foreign to the Scriptures and which he admits is just his own opinion which can be taken or left - of how Christ's death helped get us out of the "hole" by helping us to do good.

How foreign to the plain words of Isaiah who said,

"the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."

And of Peter who said,

"Who his own self bare our sins in his body on the tree, that we, being dead to sin, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye are healed."

Mark Osgatharp

 

Dear Brother Mark,
I am sorry, but I cannot see anything in Lewis' statement that you graciously provide except that he is supporting the substitionary death of Christ.

He is presenting this in language different than you and I would perhaps use, however he is supporting it non the less.

I have thought during the course of this thread that what Christianity needs right now is another apologist, what do yall think? Don't Christ need another apologist?

Seems the only thing that Lewis is guilty of is trying to be an apologist, to offer Christ to the world without offending the world.

At best that is all that I can see in his words.

that, inmho, is not unlike offering a dead, risen, all powerful savior to a dead sinner and saying something like "He wants to save you, will you let him".

Most of Christianity today is an apology for Christ, it is a beggar's message as it is now proclaimed in some places. Nothing more or less than what Lewis did through fiction, do preachers do every Sunday morning from the pulpit. Speaking of God's faithfulness, His sovereignty, His immutability, His attributes, then asking the dead if they 'will' let this all powerful God save them since that is what He wants more than anything else.

No wonder HIS sheep are not hearing and not following.

Bro. Dallas

 

Frogman,

I believe Christ was punished for my sins. That is what the Bible teaches.

Mr. Lewis says he does not believe this. He says he finds this idea "immoral" and "silly."

Do you believe Christ was punished in your place? If so, then you believe a different thing from what Mr. Lewis taught in his book "Mere Christianity".

Mark Osgatharp

 

"Lewis did say he found the idea of Christ dying as a punishment for our sins to be "silly" and "immoral".


Mark

Im reading the same quotes as you, and I am in no way getting the impression that Mr. Lewis is saying that he finds this idea to be silly or immoral. It seems that you are taking this grossly out of context.


Let me give you an example


The first time that I read the story of Abraham and Isaac, I thought it absurd!!! (this was before I was saved) The idea of a loving God asking this was ridiculous.. evil even!!!

Then, I got saved, and understood the bigger picture.

I might explain this by saying.."I dont find this so evil, absurd, or ridiculous as I used to."

It does not mean that I still find it evil, absurd or ridiculous, it was simply how I chose to make the statement, and anyone who has ever read Lewis's books can concur that he often uses that style of writing. As I read on in the text, I understand that he does not find the idea silly or immoral anymore. He has the big picture now, just as I have the big picture of why God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son in such a brutal way. I didnt understand it before. Now I do.


Having said that..

I loved Mere Christianity, until I got to about the last 2 chapters. Then the talk of evolution and folks of other religions belonging to Christ sort of puzzled me, because up until that point, I really really liked the book. The way he worded things on certain topics was just so enlightening to me. Things I could never before understand and struggled to understand either made sense, or I came to the realization that I might never understand them, but I have to accept them anyways because that is what the bible says.

 

Emily,

Read what Mr. Lewis said. He said that he does not believe that Christ was punished for our sins. He said that he found this idea silly and immoral.

No where does he indicate that he once rejected this and subsequently accepted it. He gives his idea of what it means that Christ died for us and flatly says this does not mean Christ was punished for our sins. Here, again, is what he said:

"Or if you take 'paying the penalty,' not in the sense of being punished [emphasis added], but in the more general sense of 'standing the racket' or 'footing the bill,' then, of course, it is a matter of common experience that, when one person has got himself into a hole, the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind friend."


Mark Osgatharp