Lewis vs Christ

Inclusivism does not usually require a rejection of what that person knows and I don't believe Lewis' inclusivism requires that rejection either.

 

"Inclusivism does not usually require a rejection of what that person knows and I don't believe Lewis' inclusivism requires that rejection either"---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you are saying that his posistion was even if someone knew all about christ but remained a muslim or whatever, he could still be saved, without accepting christ as his savior. I don't believe Lewis thought that.

 

Here is a quote from "The Last Battle" where it shows a follower of Tash (a false god) who never rejected Tash but rejects Aslan, being accepted by Aslan.

It also shows how Aslan hates being portrayed as the same as Tash (universalism).

 

Yes, I will take Christ!

But, Dr. Bob, this list that you have posted several times sounds like a list you have gotten from someone without really "discerning" the matter yourself.
It has been quite a while since I have read Lewis, but your list inspired me to glance through several books tonight.
I think Lewis did believe in bodily resurrection. See CH. 16, "Miracles of the New Creation" in Miracles.
"The Resurrection is the central theme..." On and on the chapter goes. He addresses many objections a modern atheist or agnostic has.
And he does have a way with words on the resurrection of the body:
"These small and perishable bodies we now have were given to us as ponies are given to schoolboys. We must learn to manage: not that we may some day be free of horses altogether but that some day we may ride bare-back, confident and rejoicing, those greater mounts, those winged, shining and world-shaking horses which perhaps even now expect us with impatience, pawing and snorting in the King's stables."

As to salvation in pagan religions, I don't think that is what he was saying. See Mere Christianity. "...being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong.....but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others." To say that is not to say that pagan religions save.

Re: Lewis's problematic inclusivism in "The Last Battle". Even Lewis presents Emeth as an exceedingly rare exception. Lots of sincere pagans condemned in that book.

Oh, yes. I'm a non-smoking, non-drinking Baptist. But what you say about Lewis's drinking habits, etc. could be said about a lot of very conservative Reformed types these days. But the BB has been over that ground on plenty of threads.

Karen

 

Reading that list makes me think he was a Baptist. Just Joking folks.

 

Gold Dragon, I'll have to reread that, gut I am gathering from the context that this character did not have any revelation of Aslan and therefor would fall into my South American head hunter category.

 

If Lewis did not agree with the "bodily resurrection" why did he have Aslan bodily resurrected in the TCON?

 

Indeed Nate. I don't quite trust that by now infamous list.

 

Wow Dr Bob...what a laundry list

 

Its like the Passion thread---when it came out and many of my church members went to see it---they'd come back to church "gawkin'" about it and would spend time "telling" anyone who would listen of their "favorite" scene and how it was so real!!

Mercy! I just wanted to scream!!! "Get real, People!!"

 

Good point. Likewise, if he didn't believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ, why did he have Aslan give his life for Edmund's?

 

If people in your church are doing this in church instead of Bible study, I agree. However, just in casual social conversation about subjects such as the weather, I don't see the problem.
I went to Sunday School and church. I mentioned the movie briefly,going out the door afterwards, to a teenage boy I knew was very interested. Our conversation was only a few seconds.

You have never discussed your Star Wars interest with a fellow Christian?

Karen

 

Dear Mark,
Your above post is a classic example of why I find it hard sometimes to take you seriously.
I have a strong Landmark background even though I am SBC. I actually agree with a number of things you say, and I consider the rest.

However, the above post is nothing more than a flame in which you show that you did not really read the posts you are talking about.
The whole point is that Dr. Bob's list is faulty and inaccurate. Not that I or others think that it is a list of acceptable doctrine.

How about if we discuss the issues instead of personal attacks?

Karen

 

Apparently Lewis believed in salvation apart from Jesus. He sounds as if Jesus isn't necessary for salvation, just a good addition, but not necessary.

 

That is a common misunderstanding of inclusive theology. Inclusive theology says that salvation is not possible apart from Christ, but may be possible apart from Christianity.

 

Here's the essense of the disagreement.

saying "strongly attracted by Him" apparantly means, to some, that lewis does away with Him.

saying "who thus belong to Christ without knowing it" apparantly, to some, means "you don't have to belong to Christ".

c'mon, folks, can't you read the king's english?

 

That is a common misunderstanding of inclusive theology. Inclusive theology says that salvation is not possible apart from Christ, but may be possible apart from Christianity. </font>[/QUOTE]Christianity is Christ. How can one be a chrisitan and not be considered a christian, how can one be a christian apart from christianity, if indeed christianity is Christ.
Laughable indeed.

 

this is not a christian or biblical statement.

Attracted Him, without believing what scripture teaches about Him does not equal salvation.

What? There is nothing in agreement with Christianity in other religions, he makes them sound valid. they are false for a reason. And this statement can not be supported by scripture.

Secret Christianity? that you the christian don't even know about?
Scripture?