# C.S. Lewis: REALLY a Christian?



## Austin (Aug 23, 2010)

Rev'd Joseph Johnson recently posted this blog about an article questioning CS Lewis' Christian bona fides. Anyone have any thoughts? 

CS Lewis the Non-Christian « A Higher Orthodoxy


----------



## torstar (Aug 23, 2010)

Austin said:


> Rev'd Joseph Johnson recently posted this blog about an article questioning CS Lewis' Christian bona fides. Anyone have any thoughts?
> 
> CS Lewis the Non-Christian « A Higher Orthodoxy


 

If you start with a sentence such as: 

"Just read an article on the net that reflects the desperate attempts by the gate-keepers of reformed orthodoxy (read NAPARC types) to be meaningful and “Biblical.”"

I won't read the second line.


----------



## LeeJUk (Aug 23, 2010)

Hm the article was so kinda unorganised and emotional but I agree overall with his anger at the way some reformed people can't seem to have full fellowship with their arminian brothers in Christ but I mean it works both ways, theres hyper-arminians who think that we are total devils for believing the doctrines of grace and that we have a different God. Both are sad and unnecessary.


----------



## jjraby (Aug 23, 2010)

LeeJUk said:


> Hm the article was so kinda unorganised and emotional but I agree overall with his anger at the way some reformed people can't seem to have full fellowship with their arminian brothers in Christ but I mean it works both ways, theres hyper-arminians who think that we are total devils for believing the doctrines of grace and that we have a different God. Both are sad and unnecessary.


----------



## lynnie (Aug 23, 2010)

Lessons from an Inconsolable Soul :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

This looks like the transcript of the audio I heard. Whether you agree or not, it is a well thought out commentary on this exact subject.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 23, 2010)

Perhaps he should direct his frustration towards the author of the article, and not towards Reformed orthodoxy as a whole? Perhaps he should realize that John Robbins' take on Clarkianism is not exactly a view that is representative of the contemporary Reformed? Perhaps also he should consider that always reforming according to the word of God does not mean constantly changing the Confession (which is what we confess the word of God to teach!) or the phrase "according to the word of God" is effectively meaningless?

That all said, though, post-mortem excommunications of C.S. Lewis are largely a waste of time: since there is no possibility of calling him to repentance now, we can evalue his writings for their harmony with the truth and overall helpfulness and leave it at that.


----------



## goodnews (Aug 23, 2010)

Austin said:


> Rev'd Joseph Johnson recently posted this blog about an article questioning CS Lewis' Christian bona fides. Anyone have any thoughts?
> 
> CS Lewis the Non-Christian « A Higher Orthodoxy



Sounds like Rev. Johnson has misunderstood the Reformed view on the many shades of grace, which isn't unusual. I dislike it when anyone, from either side, has such a vitriolic reaction toward fellow Believers. Having said that, if anyone thinks Lewis didn't understand the necessity of faith and grace hasn't read many of his books, In my humble opinion. He's one of the many that I look forward to meeting in heaven.


----------



## lynnie (Aug 23, 2010)

I don't know why people even bother to read John Robbins. He went on crusades against Gaffin, Van Til, Mac Arthur, Bahnsen, Frame, etc, and it is one thing to debate and discuss doctrine, but that guy was over the top.


----------



## Austin (Aug 24, 2010)

Jeff: Joseph is a reformed minister who subscribes to the Westminster Stds.


----------



## goodnews (Aug 24, 2010)

Austin said:


> Jeff: Joseph is a reformed minister who subscribes to the Westminster Stds.



My apologies, and thanks for getting me up to speed. If he's indeed a Westminster Standards guy then what's his beef with us NAPARC types? A closer read of the article reveals that he subscribes to the "reformed and continually reforming" tenet, which I agree with. But, there are some "basics" in our doctrine that can't be too flexible. Does he want them to flex further from the center in an effort to be "relevant" to today's non-Believers? 

Also, does anyone else think CS Lewis isn't saved? I realize it's not for us to presume to decide who is and who isn't saved. But, who among us is so "reformed" to know the answer? From what I've read from Lewis I believe he understood well what grace is all about.


----------



## ADKing (Aug 24, 2010)

Here is a very fair and balanced treatment SermonAudio.com - Was C. S. Lewis an Evangelical?


----------



## torstar (Aug 24, 2010)

goodnews said:


> Austin said:
> 
> 
> > Jeff: Joseph is a reformed minister who subscribes to the Westminster Stds.
> ...




As noted earlier on this thread, the link on the article goes to a Gordon Clark site.

I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Austin (Aug 24, 2010)

I think the 'beef' that Joseph has with 'NAPARC types' is the tendency among some of us (and I include myself) to become so obsessed with the trees that we miss the forest. As much as we admire the puritans (if we do), and as convinced as we are of the accuracy of the system of doctrine to which we subscribe, Joseph's link to this unfortunate article is a quite tangible reminder that when we cross over from being Gospel-focused catholic (little 'c') Christians to being TR hacks we are skating out on the ice of Pharisaism. 

What I mean is this: according to our own confessional standards and our Reformed heritage we are 1st & foremost catholic Christians. Our standard of unity is the Apostles', Nicene, & Athanasian creeds of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. (Remember, the Reformers weren't scismatics; they were *reformers*. Their goal was to reform the 'one, holy, catholic, & apostolic Church,' not to create sects.) 

Unfortunately, too often the tendency in Reformed circles these days is to focus on the 'boundary markers' of orthodoxy... and orthodoxy is far too often defined as 'what I see as Reformed theology.') 

For those of us who are not members of NAPARC, there is an unfortunate association in the minds of many with NAPARC members and Reformed pharisaism. (This is especially true of people whose experience with the PCA [for instance] has been limited to certain regions of the deep South.) 

I think this is the substance of Rev'd Johnson's critique of "NAPARC types." Perhaps his brush is a bit too big, but I think the reminder that when we obsess over other catholic Christians believing as we do, we tend to become those who strain gnats & swallow camels.


----------



## christiana (Aug 24, 2010)

We must not suppose that if we succeeded in making everyone nice we should have saved their souls. A world of nice people, content in their own niceness, looking no further, turned away from God, would be just as desperately in need of salvation as a miserable world.
C.S. Lewis


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 25, 2010)

I don't know what the blogger is all about.
The article is old, and the author is dead. So, now *he* knows for sure.
None of us can say "for sure" where the article-writer is now. In either case, we leave those questions in God's hands.

As for the blogger, I think he's hyperventilating, and making guilt-by-association connections.
I recall one of our denomination's elder statesmen expressing shock that a man, seeking ordination in our church, would publicly state for the record that he doubted BillyGraham's salvation. SFAIK, that man was not approved for ministry.


----------



## Philip (Aug 25, 2010)

C.S. Lewis was not reformed, nor was he classically orthodox. His view of Scripture was closer to Karl Barth than J. Gresham Machen, he believed in Purgatory (though not necessarily the RC conception of it), and he was a broader inclusivist than most of us would be comfortable with. In spite of all this, I believe, based on his writings, that he was indeed a Christian, saved by grace in spite of his errors.

When reading Lewis, one gets a sense of great joy as he's writing. He himself would admit that he was not a professional theologian but a layman who happened to write popular theology and devotional works. He is perfectly willing to be wrong and for God to be right. 

As for the article, the author is clearly responding to a straw man who most of us would say is on the extreme fringe of the Reformed landscape. My response to Robbins' article would probably be less vitriolic and slightly more humorous. However, I do think there are some good points---they just could have been said better.


----------



## ZackF (Aug 25, 2010)

The man is arguing against a straw man like others have said. That given, who cares? His "response" wasn't articulated well. Furthermore, finishing up the article with a line about the "losing the culture war" did it for me. I suppose I am weary about hearing about the culture. If I thought the "culture war" was measure of all things I would have remained Roman Catholic. Five years ago it seemed all of the rage to have a blog with a latin title and complain about the culture in every way possible including "gnosticism" in Reformed theology. Didn't Paul have criticism for those who beliefs were "not according to knowledge?" I consider Lewis a Christian and have been helped by him but he seems to be beyond reproach to some.


----------

