C.S. Lewis vs Cornelius Van Til

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jonah

Puritan Board Freshman
Hi,

This is from one of our former members, Eric Sigward:

"In one of his writings on romantic love, C. S. Lewis alludes to a man skulking through the streets looking for a woman. This, says Lewis, is not true love. True love seeks to have and to cherish, while lust only desires for itself. That would seem to be a coherent Christian statement, but Cornelius Van Til would have considered it to be inadequate. Was that man not a sinner in need of Jesus Christ? What is the difference between Christian and non-Christian love? Without a proper Christian context, Lewis's statement expresses merely an idealism not much different from refined paganism. Van Til said, "Ideals are like a highway in the sky. There are no entrance ramps."

What do you think?

PS You can read the whole article: just Google "Van Til Made Me Reformed" by Eric H. Sigward
 
Lewis's distinction between true love and lust will be valid whether the man involved is a Christian or not. Van Til is correct that the ideal of love cannot be realized in practice by a non-believer.
 
"Lewis's distinction between true love and lust will be valid whether the man involved is a Christian or not. Van Til is correct that the ideal of love cannot be realized in practice by a non-believer."
It is true, but I think that the writer had something else in mind: do simply correct language in regard to morality preach Christ and Him crucified, or do this an ultimately deny the Gospel? In other words: how do we evangelize? Is engaging the world in discussion of values and morality that simply represents a logical truth but doesn't put it (and how do we really put it in this context - explicitly or can we do it implicitly?) in the Christian context moral? Or is it just an encouragement to be "moral" without Christ, and thus denying the Gospel?
 
It goes without saying that no love ascends to its highest potential outside of knowing the love of God in Christ, but what Lewis says on love is true. True love wants the object itself, and not just what the object can give.
 
This quote seems to be making a category mistake. It assumes that there can be no natural virtues after the fall and that common grace cannot produce them. It assumes that being moral and being righteous are the same thing. Being moral means striving for virtue. Being righteous means being united to Christ and being continually remade in his image and receiving alien righteousness apart from the law. One can be moral without being righteous, and one can (at least initially) be righteous without being moral. But it is perfectly possible to have one who is a Christian be a generally nastier and more selfish person than his non-Christian neighbour. Morality and common decency are common and natural virtues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top