This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Lewis's later view on Christianity

The man. The myth.

Postby Stellathomas » 04 Sep 2008, 05:01

Lewis believed in prayers for the dead and purgatory and confessed his sins to a priest. He denied the total depravity of man and the substitutionary atonement of Christ. He believed in theistic evolution and rejected the Bible as the infallible Word of God. He taught that hell is a state of mind. The Narnia fables are filled with heresy, promoting the concept of white or good witches and even teaching universalism.
-----------------
Stellathomas



http://www.christian-drug-rehab.org
Stellathomas
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sep 2008

Postby rusmeister » 04 Sep 2008, 09:34

Stellathomas wrote:Lewis believed in prayers for the dead and purgatory and confessed his sins to a priest.
He denied the total depravity of man and the substitutionary atonement of Christ.
He believed in theistic evolution and rejected the Bible as the infallible Word of God.
He taught that hell is a state of mind.
The Narnia fables are filled with heresy, promoting the concept of white or good witches and even teaching universalism.

There's a lot of truth in what is said here. But some things are debatable and some extremely debatable.
If you ever inquire directly of the faiths that do teach concepts (Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican...) such as praying for the dead and confessing your sins BEFORE a priest (an important distinction), rather than simply accepting what people of your own faith tell you they believe - and here, official canonical sources are much safer than lay sources - then you may find that the given practices have the backing of Scripture and/or other Church Tradition that you were unaware of.

You might find some people that agree with you - I would even agree on some things, such as the doctrine of Purgatory, as expressed by the RCC. But you should provide evidence of your claims and then how his own (by now old) Anglican Tradition denied those claims. The interesting points would be where he contradicted his own faith.

It IS good to be clear on how a Christian writer departs from or denies your faith tradition. But then you have to be clear on who is right and why.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Postby moogdroog » 04 Sep 2008, 21:09

Stellathomas wrote:Lewis believed in prayers for the dead and purgatory and confessed his sins to a priest.


You say that like it's a bad thing! :beatnik:
User avatar
moogdroog
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 476
Joined: May 2007

Postby historyb » 05 Sep 2008, 21:51

Stellathomas wrote:Lewis believed in prayers for the dead and purgatory and confessed his sins to a priest. He denied the total depravity of man and the substitutionary atonement of Christ. He believed in theistic evolution and rejected the Bible as the infallible Word of God. He taught that hell is a state of mind. The Narnia fables are filled with heresy, promoting the concept of white or good witches and even teaching universalism.
-----------------
Stellathomas


moogdroog wrote:You say that like it's a bad thing! :beatnik:


Agreed, I believe in purgatory and confess my sins to a priest. I also prayer for those in purgatory who aren't dead.
User avatar
historyb
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: in a house

Postby rusmeister » 06 Sep 2008, 03:04

FWIW, Orthodox Christianity doesn't claim knowledge of (and therefore teach) "Purgatory". We maintain a more agnostic view (in the sense of "we don't know") on the subject. There is a pious tradition (that is NOT dogma) of 'toll-houses', which, based on the report of a saint from another saint, describes a "journey" through all the evils and sins of our life, but again, it is not a dogmatic teaching of canonical Orthodoxy, so we are free to say, "I don't know". Some see it as a move towards gnosticism (secret/special knowledge). Personally, I am inclined to agree. But neither will I deny the concept. I just don't know. :)

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Aerial_Toll-Houses

Just thought that would be interesting. (Now U R edoocated!)
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Postby matdonna » 06 Sep 2008, 19:22

Stellathomas wrote:. The Narnia fables are filled with heresy, promoting the concept of white or good witches and even teaching universalism.
-----------------
Stellathomas


um...the White Witch in Narnia is a *bad* witch.......
User avatar
matdonna
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 401
Joined: Oct 2006

Postby moogdroog » 07 Sep 2008, 16:37

rusmeister wrote:FWIW, Orthodox Christianity doesn't claim knowledge of (and therefore teach) "Purgatory". We maintain a more agnostic view (in the sense of "we don't know") on the subject. There is a pious tradition (that is NOT dogma) of 'toll-houses', which, based on the report of a saint from another saint, describes a "journey" through all the evils and sins of our life, but again, it is not a dogmatic teaching of canonical Orthodoxy, so we are free to say, "I don't know". Some see it as a move towards gnosticism (secret/special knowledge). Personally, I am inclined to agree. But neither will I deny the concept. I just don't know. :)

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Aerial_Toll-Houses

Just thought that would be interesting. (Now U R edoocated!)


Edumacation is always welcome! :grin:
User avatar
moogdroog
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 476
Joined: May 2007

Postby Mornche Geddick » 30 Oct 2008, 14:51

Mr John W. Robbins claims anything less than a belief that every word in the Bible is literally true will get you damned. But leaving aside the contradictions within the Bible, I'd like to answer that assertion with a single question of my own:

How can you insist on a literal word-for-word interpretation of the Bible when the Bible itself warns you not to?
[God] also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
II Corinthians 3, 6
I don't see how you could have a stronger warning than that, do you?

Elsewhere Paul warns us that the scriptures are to be read "with the spirit and with understanding" without which we would go astray.
Mornche Geddick
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: May 2008

Postby rusmeister » 30 Oct 2008, 17:23

Mornche Geddick wrote:Mr John W. Robbins claims anything less than a belief that every word in the Bible is literally true will get you damned. But leaving aside the contradictions within the Bible, I'd like to answer that assertion with a single question of my own:

How can you insist on a literal word-for-word interpretation of the Bible when the Bible itself warns you not to?
[God] also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
II Corinthians 3, 6
I don't see how you could have a stronger warning than that, do you?

Elsewhere Paul warns us that the scriptures are to be read "with the spirit and with understanding" without which we would go astray.


Don't forget 2 Thess 2:15 - which must make Sola Scripturists squirm! (Or more likely, turn a blind eye to) A verse that insists on a Tradition by word of mouth as well as written...
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Postby historyb » 30 Oct 2008, 19:39

rusmeister wrote:
Don't forget 2 Thess 2:15 - which must make Sola Scripturists squirm! (Or more likely, turn a blind eye to) A verse that insists on a Tradition by word of mouth as well as written...


Not at all if understood properly why would it make me squirm.
User avatar
historyb
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: in a house

Postby rusmeister » 31 Oct 2008, 02:31

historyb wrote:
rusmeister wrote:
Don't forget 2 Thess 2:15 - which must make Sola Scripturists squirm! (Or more likely, turn a blind eye to) A verse that insists on a Tradition by word of mouth as well as written...


Not at all if understood properly why would it make me squirm.

Show me the authority that 'understands it properly'.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Postby historyb » 31 Oct 2008, 04:02

rusmeister wrote:
historyb wrote:
rusmeister wrote:
Don't forget 2 Thess 2:15 - which must make Sola Scripturists squirm! (Or more likely, turn a blind eye to) A verse that insists on a Tradition by word of mouth as well as written...


Not at all if understood properly why would it make me squirm.

Show me the authority that 'understands it properly'.


Why do you need man's authority, that's the problem looking for man's authority as opposed to looking to God's authority. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Scripture is the highest authority, not man.

2 Thess 2:15 when taken into context, and even a plain reading of that verse, does not say that we still have tradition what Paul said was to hold fast to what they have learned. Nothing about a continuing tradition or even tradition being on an even keel with Scripture in the future. To even say that Paul tried to say that is reading into the text.
User avatar
historyb
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: in a house

Postby rusmeister » 31 Oct 2008, 10:25

historyb wrote:
rusmeister wrote:
historyb wrote:
rusmeister wrote:
Don't forget 2 Thess 2:15 - which must make Sola Scripturists squirm! (Or more likely, turn a blind eye to) A verse that insists on a Tradition by word of mouth as well as written...


Not at all if understood properly why would it make me squirm.

Show me the authority that 'understands it properly'.


Why do you need man's authority, that's the problem looking for man's authority as opposed to looking to God's authority. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Scripture is the highest authority, not man.

2 Thess 2:15 when taken into context, and even a plain reading of that verse, does not say that we still have tradition what Paul said was to hold fast to what they have learned. Nothing about a continuing tradition or even tradition being on an even keel with Scripture in the future. To even say that Paul tried to say that is reading into the text.


And what if another Christian disagrees with your interpretation? (because they do) Where is the authority that declares who's right? This is the essential problem of the myriad of Protestant divisions. If two people are both referring to Scripture to prove themselves right and they flat-out contradict each other, one may or may not be right but they can't both be right.

I say that a "plain reading" makes it clear that there is oral, as well as written, Tradition (of the Church - as distinct from "traditions of men"). If there is oral tradition, as Scripture itself says, then clearly it is not all in the Bible. The difference is that I accept external authority - that of the Church, rather than referring only to my own intellect or that of this scholar or that scholar to 'back me up'.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Postby historyb » 31 Oct 2008, 18:10

rusmeister wrote:
And what if another Christian disagrees with your interpretation? (because they do) Where is the authority that declares who's right? This is the essential problem of the myriad of Protestant divisions. If two people are both referring to Scripture to prove themselves right and they flat-out contradict each other, one may or may not be right but they can't both be right.

I say that a "plain reading" makes it clear that there is oral, as well as written, Tradition (of the Church - as distinct from "traditions of men"). If there is oral tradition, as Scripture itself says, then clearly it is not all in the Bible. The difference is that I accept external authority - that of the Church, rather than referring only to my own intellect or that of this scholar or that scholar to 'back me up'.


When proper Biblical exegesis is used the Bible is the final authority always, if we disagree we work it out through Scriptures we don't need a fallible man to tell us what to think.

Your very adding to what Paul said which is disingenuous.
User avatar
historyb
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: in a house

Postby rusmeister » 31 Oct 2008, 18:57

historyb wrote:
rusmeister wrote:
And what if another Christian disagrees with your interpretation? (because they do) Where is the authority that declares who's right? This is the essential problem of the myriad of Protestant divisions. If two people are both referring to Scripture to prove themselves right and they flat-out contradict each other, one may or may not be right but they can't both be right.

I say that a "plain reading" makes it clear that there is oral, as well as written, Tradition (of the Church - as distinct from "traditions of men"). If there is oral tradition, as Scripture itself says, then clearly it is not all in the Bible. The difference is that I accept external authority - that of the Church, rather than referring only to my own intellect or that of this scholar or that scholar to 'back me up'.


When proper Biblical exegesis is used the Bible is the final authority always, if we disagree we work it out through Scriptures we don't need a fallible man to tell us what to think.

Your very adding to what Paul said which is disingenuous.


That's why you have thousands of Protestant interpretations that all disagree with one another, all using personal exegesis as their judicator of what Scripture means. It's proof that Sola Scriptura works!
Saying that I added anything is disingenious.

Whatever. We can't convince each other anyway.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

PreviousNext

Return to C. S. Lewis

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 1 guest