Lewis vs Christ

So a requirement for salvation is good theology?

 

Why do you suppose Paul wrote the book of Romans, explaining how salvation works, to those who were already saved? Seems like a waste of time if you are correct.

 

So what points of theology must one have nailed down in order to be saved?

 

Marcia,

That was written in a fictional story. It's probably not best to derive a writer's theology from what his fictional characters do or have done to them.

There is much of Lewis' theology that I disagree with. I enjoy his writing though, even where I disagree with him. I have found much of his work to be helpful, so I use what I can and leave the rest alone.

 

I think believing in the true God and true Jesus Christ would be essentials vs. belief in false gods. But Lewis has a character who serves Tash (a false god called the opposite to Aslan, acc. to Aslan) being accepted by Aslan.

As I stated in my post on p. 4, God condemns the worship of false gods, yet in "The Last Battle," Aslan considers service to Tash as service to himself.

I think there are 2 issues going on here in this thread -- one is whether Lewis was a believer (which is really the topic of the other thread), and the other concerns the beliefs of Lewis, particularly inclusivism. I think that Lewis was probably saved, or at the very least, we just don't now. To me, that is not the issue and I'm not even interested in such a discussion. What I think is important is to discuss and debate some of Lewis' beliefs that seem to go against the Bible, such as inclusivism.

If service to and worship of Tash, a false god, is okay, then where does that leave God's denouncement of false gods?

 

This thread reminds me of a group of Christians forming a circle, placing one of their own in the middle, aiming their rifles, and then someone yells, "Fire!".

 

And after finishing off brother Lewis's beliefs perhaps we can all turn our attention to some of the beliefs of every poster on the Baptist Board that seem to go against the Bible.

I imagine that would be just as fruitful and edifying as this thread has been.

 

How odd that so many of us use the "Romans Road" to show the lost how to be saved. The first 11 chapters (68.75%) deal with the need for and provision of salvation, and what it means and what it doesn't mean, and what all comes along with salvation. Then chapters 12-16 (31.25%) deal with how we who have been so gloriously saved should now present ourselves to God as living sacrifices, and what that looks like. That's an awful lot of material explaining in detail things that they already had to know in order to have already been saved.

 

And after finishing off brother Lewis's beliefs perhaps we can all turn our attention to some of the beliefs of every poster on the Baptist Board that seem to go against the Bible.

I imagine that would be just as fruitful and edifying as this thread has been. </font>[/QUOTE]I think this is a very unfair statement, Ken. We are supposed to test all things -- especially beliefs espoused by man.

It doesn't matter if it's Lewis' inclusivism, the issue I was referring to is inclusivism, period. I don't care if it's from Lewis or whoever -- that's not the point and I thought that was clear.

The Narnia movie is bringing a focus on Lewis' works, and there is nothing wrong with bringing up this issue.

 

Frankly, I find it reprehensible that apparently some on this board have designated themselves the "salvation police".

 

Well, I'm not one of them.

However, we are called to test doctrines, and that is what I've been discussing.

 

dr. Bob
"Cannot for the life of me imagine WHY anyone wants to make CS Lewis into something he was not!! He was an English/Roman Catholic, not an evangelical who believed the Gospel like we do. "
"
That's actually a fascinating question.
Why would a large faction of Conservative Americanstyle Evangelicals (the very essence of Low Church Christianity), embrace the work of Lewis (very much the quintessential High Church Anglican*)?
I suspect it's the combination of the story of his conversion, followed by the universal success of the books he wrote afterwards.
Lewis has been the last universally sucessfull Christian author in the English speaking world.
After him Christian authors have not performed well outside of the Christian niche market.
Left Behind sold millions, but almost all of it's buyers were pre-tribbers already.

*Which is not the same as Roman Catholicism by the way. Just compare the way problems are solved in the Roman Catholic influenced Lord of the Rings and in the Anglican influenced The Chronicles of Narnia.
In Narnia the Christ figure solves the main problem of the setting.
In Middle Earth the Christ Figure inspires others into solving the main problem of the setting.

 

You are free to disagree with this Tash/Aslan fictional imagery and possible analogies to reality. I was simply using it to show how Lewis' inclusivism doesn't necessarily require a rejection of what the non-Christian already knew as Bunyon was suggesting Lewis meant.

Obviously this story doesn't make inclusivism any more right or biblical. It is just useful to get a glimpse of what Lewis' inclusivism looked like.

 

I mean this in the sense that I don't consider them to be any more distant from orthodoxy than many other wrong doctrines found in baptist groups like KJVO, ultra-dispensationalism, hyper-calvinism, legalism, etc. and will have to answer to God about. Or the wrong doctrines that I have believed and will believe in my lifetime.

 

C. S. Lewis wrote in a time and place where liberalism was the only acceptable teaching of the day. He took tremendous pressure from his colleagues, and yes, he slipped. His later works especially were quite liberal. He is one of many in a very long line who started well, did great work, and didn't finish well. God help us all that we should not do the same.

However, that said, he was writing fiction....FICTION....as was John Bunyon and a host of others. These are simple stories designed to prove a simple point. Not much different that Jesus use of parables.....if we take every parable Jesus used and try to make it fit an exact systematic theology, we end in disaster. They aren't meant to teach the hypostatic union, or omnisapience, or the immutability of God, which if denied, end in heresy. For not even Jesus parables are purely consistent theologically.....they aren't meant to be.....they were only meant to be simple stories to illustrate a simple point. Ditto with C. S. Lewis.

Take Narnia for what it is.....a children's story to teach basic truth to a child.

 

God's Truth is found in the Bible. man's "truth" is found in fables.