Was Lewis a Christian Universalist?

[Stanley Anderson]

[Guest]

[Paul F. Ford]

This quote sounds "universalist" to me too.

I think anyone interested in this issue would profit from reading Dare We Hope "That All Men Be Saved?" by Hans Urs von Balthasar (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988; ISBN 0-89870-207-0). Von Balthasar was a Swiss priest and theologian who was named a cardinal by Pope John Paul II, a fact that would vouch for theological orthodoxy in some circles.

Von Balthasar makes use of George MacDonald and C. S. Lewis in the course of his argument, rooted in scripture, that although we cannot safely make universal salvation an object of an act of faith, we must make it an onject of our hope lest our love be difficient.

If you have access to a theological library (or a library willing to do an interlibrary loan or photocopy), look for the following instructive article: Theological Studies 52 (1991) "CURRENT ESCHATOLOGY: UNIVERSAL SALVATION AND THE PROBLEM OF HELL" by JOHN R. SACHS, S.J., Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass.

[Guest]

[Shadowland Dweller]

wow, I feel so uneducated! I feel like I need a Phd. to believe in Christ. The funny thing is, Jesus avoided those who called themselves educated and hung out with the simple people, even using simple stories to talk about the kingdom of God. I don't think He was trying to "dumb down" the message though, I think He understood that for all our words, we sometimes miss the forest for the trees, and I think the gospel is just that, simple. Something that bothers me when things get too wordy is that it feels like God is being put in a box, we say "this is what I know of you, so this is all you can do or be." I don't like that and I don't like complicated. This is what I believe; God is love, Jesus died (and rose again) as an expression of that love, He gives every man, woman and child what they need to believe in Him and spend eternity at His throne.
I think a story I read in the paper the other day demonstrates my last opinion. (I will give the short version) After the tsunami, a man found that he was the only human on a small island in India. He had nothing else the entire island lay in ruin, yet, he found a bible and read it every night until help came. Just because all we know is all we know, doesnt mean that is all there is to know.

[Guest]

[Guest]

First of all, let me say that it has been an interesting experience reading this entire thread. There are a number of points that I wish I could have responded to earlier, but alas, I only recently found this site... However, it seems that so many people have excellent apologetics at their own fingertips.

One point here that I would like to reiterate in regards to the interpretation of inclusivity and Universalist leanings: The leading quote in support of this theory (posted by Coinherent) from Mere Christianity was written in an interrogative form. Certainly Lewis was asking the question of whether it is fair... etc.

In regards to this entire conversatoin, it seems to me that we must look at the reality of God in this (or at least as much as He has allowed us to see). Are we not aware that God does not need a physical object to perform His will? If He presents Himself to a person, wouldn't that personal revelation be enough for that person to come to know Him? We do not need a bound copy of the Bible in order to enter into a relationship with our Christ.

As much as the concept of inclusivity works vis avis accepting 'good people' from any religion, what is to say that Jesus does not present Himself as the Savior to a Buddhist or Hindu just as easily as an Agnostic/Atheist/Deist? It is the actual nature of our relationship with God that results in the salvation required of our souls.

The precedent for this is extreme, as it is extraordinary. God speaks to Moses, who believes His unique divinity even though he raised as a polytheist Egyptian; missionaries did not bring Saul to a conversion point, but rather Jesus himself revealed in person; the Greek altar to the Unknown God, which Paul understands (through the gift of discernment) to be to God; and the numerous occassions post-scripture in which people (and groups of people) are aware of the nature of God, Jesus and the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I cannot believe that it is an inclusivist's belief that only through the revelation of the Christ sacrifice and resurrection can one be saved. But that is exactly where Lewis begins and ends. He often discusses, as pointed out in the previously quoted passages, that a variety of people may come to understand and believe in Christ without being named Christian in a social or religiously established setting.

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

[loeee]

I think what Water and Fire has been trying to say is fairly clear. Jesus Christ can reveal Himself to whomever He chooses, whether or not that person has ever heard the gospel.

For instance, a Saudi Arabian man walked into a Bible book store in Jordan. The man asked for a Bible in Arabic. When the bookseller asked him why he wanted a Bible, when it was illegal for him to posess in his own country, he related this story:

"I had a dream, and Isa (Jesus) appeared to me. He told me to follow Him, and told me I should read the Bible."

This is, BTW, a true story.

There have been many instances where Christian missionaries have penetrated an hitherto un-evangelized area to discover that some of the people recognized their message instantly. This, they say, is who we have been following. Now, at last, we know His name.

The assertion is not that people following another religion, but doing so with "the best intentions," will be saved, but that it is possible for someone to be saved by Christ and follow Him without actually knowing "Christianity."

[Guest]

Hi Loeee,

Certainly, God can do almost anything...now where the stew really starts to thicken is when we ask: why some and not others? Of course, a loving God (and for some an unconditionally loving God) would reveal himself to some and not others. Correspondingly, all religions have Christ in it somewhere.

Nice idea and I wish this beyond any wish...and although I can admit that there is a wideness in God's mercy...I also have to admit that there is a wildness in God's mercy as well.

There are other stories of missionaries going into the sub-saharan and discovering that killing twins was godly (I heard it at a missions conference)...and numerous other abominations (mothers teaching their sons how to have sex/Fathers teaching their daughters).

[Guest]

[Guest]

I was aware that the catholic church adopted an inclusivist view (lumen gentum at Vatican II). What official Eastern Orthodox doctrine support this as well? I'd appreciate that information.