Evidence for God from Science

Do you love the Chronicles of Narnia? Are you looking forward to having a chat with CS Lewis about its most intricate and personal details? Then stop focusing on it before you'll be too disappointed. In Did C.S. Lewis go to Heaven?, John W. Robbins asks that very question, and ultimately answers: 'Not if he believed what he wrote in his books and letters.'

That is a radical claim to make -- but it is not unsubstantiated, and Robbins writes with a lot more moderation than, say, Mary Van Nattan, writing at a website which calls Lewis 'the Devil's wisest fool'. No, Robbins is no raving biblicist; he comes over as clear-headed. He lists the following points about Lewis:

- Lewis did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. [This is of course not required for salvation, although it's the only way to get a good theological basis.]
- Lewis characterized some of the Psalms as fatal confusion, devilish, diabolical, contemptible, petty, and vulgar. [Again, this does not necessarily lead to exclusion from Heaven]
- Lewis's faith centers on the acceptance of Jesus as being the Son of God; however, this is not the only thing involved in salvation, as Matthew 7:21-23 testifies.
- Lewis did not believe in justification by faith alone, whereas Paul seemed to regard it as the central Christian doctrine.

CS Lewis wrote:Humanity is already 'saved' in principle. We individuals have to appropriate that salvation. But the really tough work -- the bit we could not have done for ourselves -- has been done for us. We have not got to try to climb up into spiritual life by our own efforts; it has already come down into the human race. If we will only lay ourselves open to the one Man in whom it is fully present, and who, in spite of being God, is also a real man, he will do it in us and for us. Remember what I said about 'good infection'. One of our own race has this new life: if we get close to Him we shall catch it from Him.

Of course, you can express this in all sorts of different ways. You can say that Christ died for our sins. You may say that the Father has forgiven us because Christ has done for us what we ought to have done. You may say that we are washed in the blood of the Lamb. You may say that Christ has defeated death. They are all true. If any of them do (sic) not appeal to you, leave it alone and get on with the formula that does. And, whatever you do, do not start quarrelling with other people because they use a different formula from yours.

- Lewis believed the 'new life' was spread by the sacrament.

Mr Robbins closes the article thus:

John W. Robbins wrote:Time will not permit me to discuss many other doctrines that Lewis believed and taught that contradict the doctrine of justification by faith alone, but a brief list is in order. Lewis taught and believed in purgatory (despite the fact that Article 22 of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England describes the doctrine of purgatory as 'repugnant to the Word of God'), said prayers for the dead, believed in the physical presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine, a sacrament that he came to call 'Mass', practiced and taught auricular confession, believed in baptismal salvation, and free will. As we have seen, he rejected the inerrancy of Scripture and justification by faith alone, as well as the doctrines of total depravity and the sovereignty of God.

So we ask again: Did C. S. Lewis go to Heaven? And our answer must be: Not if he believed what he wrote in his books and letters.

This thread is actually more intended for a 'CS Lewis Salvation Debate' than for a general debate about what is required for salvation.

As an apologist, Lewis was great. As a theologian, not so much. But, then again, he never claimed to be one, although I must admit that I often wonder if in the back of his mind he didn't think of himself as such. Anywho . . .

Lewis held some odd ideas as it relates to salvation. Of course, the best place to go is Mere Christianity. I've got here the HarperSanFrancisco '00 ed. Let me offer a few quotes and comment on each:

Lewis wrote:The central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work(54)

This is a good start for Lewis. Now, I am in disagreement that the central tenant is Christ's death and resurrection. As we all know, in my view, it is that Christ offers eternal life. However, Lewis seems to have that idea in his mind when he talks about being put right with God. There are problems with his view, but his starting point, as I see things, is at least workable. More to the point, if he really believed what he wrote here, then he is not going to set up a particular view of the Atonement as absolutely essential. In his mind, the idea is to believe the Atonement itself works, and that is much closer to the Truth.

Lewis wrote:We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. (55)

We see here clearly the idea of substitutionary atonement, but what interests me the most is the phrase "by dying He disabled death itself." I wish he had clarified that more. If he is referring to the everlasting life granted to the Christian, then he is very, very close to a solid understanding of the Gospel. Again, note the phrase, "that is what has to be believed." Now, I believe that it is not enough to recognize THAT Christ offers everlasting life. Lewis certainly sees that much. It has to be appropriated, and that is by faith. However, Lewis, being an Arminian (or something very close to it) would say the same thing.

Lewis wrote:Now what was the sort of 'hole' man had gotten himself into? He had tried to set up his on his own, to behave as if he belonged to himself. In other words, fallen man is not simply an imperfect creature who needs improvement: he is a rebel who must lay down his arms. Laying down your arms, surrendering, saying you are sorry, realising that you have been on the wrong track and getting ready to start life over again from the ground floor--that is the only way out of our 'hole'. this process of surrender--this movement full speed astern--is what Christians call repentance . . . Remember, this repentance, this willing submission to humiliation and a kind of death, is not something God demands of you before He will take you back and which He could let you off if He chose: it is simply a description of what going back to Him is like (56-57)

I quote this because Lewis brings up his understanding of repentance. He seems to have an interesting cross between Chaffer's "change of mind," and the more traditional "turning from sin" views. The point is that he does not see repentance proper as a prerequisite for salvation. For him, it is the act of salvation itself. He goes on to talk about how an evil man is not capable of repenting, thus, his argument against it being essential. In his view, we can repent when Christ is in us, and through Him, we are able to submit to the will of God. This, as I see it, is a very accurate statement.

Lewis wrote:Now the Christian belef is that if we somehow share the humility and suffering of Christ we shall also share in His conquest of death and find a new life after we have died and in it become perfect, and perfectly happy creatures. (60)

Here, Lewis clearly articulates a belief in everlasting life. If we "somehow" appropriate the benefit of the death and resurrection of Christ, then we will live forever.

Lewis wrote:How is this to be done? . . . There are three things that spread the Christ-life to us: baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by different names--Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord's Supper. At least, those are the three ordinary methods. I am not saying there may not be special cases where it is spread without one or more of these. I have not time to go into special cases, and I do not know enough . . . I am not saying anything about which of these three things is the most essential. My Methodist friend would like me to say more about belief and less (in proportion) about the other two. But I am not going into that. Anyone who professes to teach you Christian doctrine will, in fact, tell you to use all three, and that is enough for our present purpose. (60-61)

It is here we come across a serious problem. The "somehow" mentioned above is clarified as being through belief, baptism, and the Lord's Supper. This is, of course, Sacramental Grace. Now, if Lewis believed this, and if he always believed it, then he did not, as I understand the gospel, believe to be saved. At the same time, he seems to understand, though he does not elaborate, that there are situations in which baptism and the Lord's Supper are not necessary.

Now, SG, in and of itself, is a fairly complex doctrine. It would seem to me that Lewis would have first had the idea that faith in Christ is necessary, and THEN he would have come to the idea that this faith is applied through the sacraments. In this case, he certainly would have simply trusted Christ, at some point in time, for his salvation, though he would have later erred. But, at this point, it is a matter of speculation, because we simply don't know - at least from these comments - what his earlier belief system was like.

Lewis wrote:In the same way a Christian can lose the Christ-life which has been put into him, and he has to make efforts to keep it. But even the best Christian that ever lived is not acting on his own steam--he is only nourishing or protecting a life he could never have acquired by his own efforts. (61-62)

And it is here we come to perhaps his most serious error. In believing a person could lose their salvation, he is in effect denying it from the outset. The key to the Gospel is believing that Christ has saved you, apart from your own works. If you have to work to keep it, then you have to work to get it. It is too bad he never stopped and reasoned through this issue. He says that we cannot acquire grace by our own effort. In that, he is correct. But he then says that we must work to keep grace. In a very real sense, for Lewis (at this stage in his life), salvation was a future thing. He did not yet have it, though he hoped to one day. He would have it if, having believed, he continued to uphold the faith. Thus, he would, in the end, gain his salvation. But this is by merit, and it is not the Gospel.

Did Lewis believe the Gospel? It is clear that at this point in his life, he did not. However, it would be foolish to declare him lost. His earlier remarks are much simpler and probably reflect an earlier understanding of the faith as a whole. I suspect that the deeper he got into theology, the more complex his soteriology became. What we read here is his developed theology. It is wrong. But is it possible that his earlier, undeveloped faith was pure and true? I can't say for sure. No one can, but we can't say it wasn't either, and it seems to me there are good indications it may well have been.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter.

God bless

Thank you, Jac; they're very articulate, as always, and to-the-point. However, is it not possible Lewis means sanctification by the 'new life'? Could he be saying that 'you can lose the Christ-life' i.e. you can fall back into sinful habits?

I don't know, Turgy. It's a possibility. He makes it a point, in Mere Christianity, anyway, to stay away from theological matters and stick to rational arguments. In the end, that makes it very difficult to discern his actual view of salvation. That is, after all, a strictly theological truth. Granted, we can rationally argue the need for salvation, and once the method is revealed, we can rationally argue to explain and prove it. Lewis does the latter of these, but, again, he is careful to avoid dogmatic statements about the actual acquistion of eternal life.

So, could he have been referring to sanctification? Perhaps. It is also possible he was referring to actual salvation and was simply inconsistent in his thinking in this area. One thing I thank God for is that human beings are capable of being logically inconsistent. We can actually hold two contradictory ideas to be true in our own minds. That means that we may be VERY wrong in one place, but yet oddly enough be right somewhere else. To that end, we don't get to heaven by making a 70 or better on the theology test. We just have to get one question right: what have you done with Jesus Christ?

I don't know if Lewis was saved. I would like to think that earlier in his faith he understood a pure and simple gospel. But, taking his words at face value, as both you and I quoted and/or referenced, we certainly know his developed theology was off. Only God knows.

That's probably the best thing to say.

Lewis seems to have confused justification and sanctification somewhat, not clearly distinguishing between one and the other. The 'Christ-life' seems to be justification + sanctification. In that case, when sanctification falls, so does justification. But Lewis stressed that when we do good works, Christ is supporting and leading us; His power is behind it.

I guess we'll discover in due time. Right now I'm glad I don't have to exclude the possibility.

Turgy, you are also bringing up a subject that may involve considerable debate between Protestants on one hand, and Catholics and Anglicans on the other.
The RCC and C of E both include reason and tradition as important in their understanding of God's Word, and since Lewis was an Anglican with some High Church leanings (he had considered becoming a Catholic at one point) there will be this additional perspective in his theology.
I am also an Anglican, same as Lewis, and accept that Scripture is primary, but is supported by reason and tradition in its interpretation. I believe Lewis is talking about the Christian life - "If you love me, you will do as I command" and "faith without works is dead" - as a continuation of one's walk with Christ. That includes the sacraments - for instance, "do this in remembrance of me" (Holy Communion, or Mass). The Church teaches that we are justified by the grace of God through our faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross. There is no doubt about that. We must believe, repent, and follow Him - justification merging into sanctification. I suspect Lewis is talking about sanctification as a natural flow-on from justification, perhaps not clearly separating these concepts.

I fully expect Lewis to be with Christ whom he loved wholeheartedly, and in the end, a person's salvation is a matter between himself and God anyway. No one else is in quite the right position to judge, nor has the authority to do so either.

Judah wrote:... a person's salvation is a matter between himself and God anyway. No one else is in quite the right position to judge, nor has the authority to do so either.

Nor is anyone in a position to even know what's in someone else's heart. We can only look inward and know. As for others, like you said Judah, it is between the person and God.

We obviously cannot say with certainty whether or not Lewis was saved. However, I don't agree with the claim that we don't have the "authority" to judge a man's "salvation."

As I've pointed out, we know that Lewis believed, at least later in life, a false gospel. It is a fact that he believed the "Christ-life" was acquired via sacramental grace. He believed this "Christ-life" could be lost. Now, I know of no proponent of SG that would say his position was a works-based salvation. So it is no suprise that Lewis reminds us that a man "could never have acquired [salvation] by his own efforts."

I believe Turgonian is correct in arguing that Lewis confused justification and sanctification. Progressive sanctification is certainly dependant, in part, on our own works (whether or not these works are enabled by God has no bearing on that simple truth). Justification, though, is totally apart from any works and is by faith alone. When Lewis confused the two, he came to the idea that justification, in some what, was dependant on our own efforts, to use his terminology. If justification can be lost by lack of works, then it must be kept, and thus ultimately gained, by the presence of works.

I am not saying Lewis is in hell. I am saying that he believed a false gospel later in life. I hold out hope that his earlier view was simpler, that salvation was by grace through faith alone, and as he got involved in the Church of England, he became indoctrinated. His statements I referenced above make that a real possibility, but, of course, we cannot say for sure. What we CAN say for sure is this: if Lewis always believed the gospel he presented in his books and letters--if he never had the simple idea of salvation by grace through faith alone--then he did, in fact, die in his sins. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" . . .

The Church of England teaches justification by faith alone. She does not teach justification is possible by good works.

XI. Of the Justification of Man.
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

XII. Of Good Works.
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

XIII. Of Works before Justification.
Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

Source

If Lewis appears to have confused justification and sanctification, then he has not done so due to indoctrination by his involvement in the Church of England, or as Jac put it "as he got involved in the Church of England, he became indoctrinated."

I suspect he is far more of an apologist than a theologian, and that his theology was coloured and flavoured by his literary gifts. Although he was at times considered a theologian by the general population, he actually denied this claim made of him. He explores ideas that the Church does not teach, but his actual fundamental beliefs were considered "orthodox" Christianity - I am referring to those he writes of in Mere Christianity.

I wish he was still around today and that we had the opportunity to talk with him. There's lots of questions I would love to ask him, and maybe we could clear this one up as well.

Turgonian asked that this not be a discussion on actual requirements of salvation, but on salvation as Lewis understood it, Judah. So, all I will say on the subject is that SG is works based salvation anyway you cut it, as I understand things. But, then again, we are supposed to be talking about things as Lewis understood it. I imagine that Lewis held to all the "proper" CoE doctrines, including those quoted above. However, they are simply inconsistent with genuine sola fide.

So, I go back to my original idea: if Lewis always believed in SG, then he is lost in his sins. If he never accepted that everlasting life is obtained by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, then he is dead in his sins. Notice in that formula, the thing obtained is defined, the Person giving it is defined, the basis on which it is received is defined, and terms on which it is received is defined. But, again, at this point, we're starting to flirt with ideas outside of the OP. I only mention them with reference to what Lewis did or did not believe.

God bless