When Susan stopped believing

[Larry W.]

I agree that it would not be best to get into the doctrine too deeply here. The idea can be considered separately from anyone's doctrine or theology and remain as valid. I think Aslan would protect and protect and preserve Susan's soul for all time and it wouldn't matter that much what she did or how far she strayed. Knowing Aslan's character (which Lewis intended to be as close to Christ as possible) it would be difficult to picture the Lion abandoning His children. Of course no theology is necessary to understand that idea, just a firm belief that God would be consistent with Himself-- even in a fictional story. It's possible and desirable to discuss that without clutter.

It has been a thoughtful discussion with everyone participating in this thread.

Larry W.

[archenland_knight]

[Larry W.]

Of course there is no requirement that someone be a Calvinist to hold the view that Aslan would not allow Susan to be lost. I'm not so sure that only a Calvinist would have that view. What would motivate Susan to return to the Lion? If she had some good in her it would come from Aslan-- in a real sense Aslan would be the force behind it. I suppose one could say that it would be in her not refusing Aslan's call, but one would think her ablity to do that actually came from Aslan. It would be more of Aslan's coming to Susan than the other way around. That is not exclusively a Calvinist idea. We don't rescue ourselves from damnation, but rather, God rescues us. Aslan did it with Eustace in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, transforming him from his nasty self. So why couldn't He do the same with Susan? Of course credit must be give to Aslan for the transformation even if Eustace allowed it to happen. Also, it was only possible for Edmund to be redeemed from his treachery through Aslan's changing him in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. It wasn't the other way around. Aslan didn't allow him to be lost, keeping his promise to him as well.

Larry W.

[archenland_knight]

[Larry W.]

What is interesting though, is that many people in the Calvinist churches love C. S. Lewis-- especially the Narnia books. In fact, only once many years ago I heard a Reformed church pastor said that he disagreed with just one thing that Lewis said-- it was his calling Christians "little Christs". Usually pastors (in my own church) will quote Lewis as someone whose faith they agree with (especially the Narnia books). In fact, a professor at the college I graduated from (a Reformed Church college) is a Lewis scholar and to my knowledge, has never made any reference to differences in doctrine in any of his books on Lewis and Narnia. So I guess it really doesn't matter very much if Christians don't always see things the same way.

If you would ask a Narnian "Did you choose Aslan or did Aslan choose you?" I guess he or she might say it was both ways. Of course if you would ask, "Do you think Aslan will always protect you and keep you in his care-- no matter what you would do", that goes a little deeper. They are hypothetical questions of course, but not too different from real life. One wonders how Susan would answer those questions. Would she say, "Fancy playing those games when we were children-- I'm doing "grown-up" things now. " Or would she become more serious and say, "Aslan is calling me back because He still wants me." My guess is that (even according to Lewis) it would be Aslan taking the initiative. That may be the reason why Lewis never actually says that Aslan never abandoned her.

Larry W.

[archenland_knight]

[Tumnus's Books]

[Larry W.]

If Calvin would still be living he would be 500 years old (my church paper mentioned his birthday recently).

Lewis' attitude toward Calvin might have been somewhat similar to George MacDonald's-- though MacDonald may have been closer to the universal view of all being saved. MacDonald, if he had lived in Lewis time, would have held out hope for Susan. I don't think Lewis ever gave up on her either. And Calvin-- maybe he would have been a little stricter, seeing the total depravity in Susan but not wanting Aslan to abandon her.

Larry W.

[archenland_knight]

[Larry W.]

"Man is depraved, but not as bad as what he could be", is what I was told as child growing up in the Christian Reformed Church (never mind the gender in the statement-- even at that time it applied to women too). I think there were worse people than Susan, but of course she needed Aslan desperately. It's hard to to think of her as a villain, but perhaps we are all villains without Christ (or Narnians without Aslan) This was a little different from George MacDonald, who almost had an universal hope for everyone. According to Lewis, if the villain doesn't change he or she dies at the end of the story. Are we really any better than the man that recently firebombed a Christmas party in California this week? I'm sure Susan was too gentle to do anything like that, but she (by herself having strayed) wasn't really a better person according to Aslan's standards. You can't be good enough without Aslan (or Christ) changing you, but when you are different as a result of the change it's not really you but Him.

Larry W.

[Tumnus's Books]

[Larry W.]

I'm not sure if the White Witch was fully human-- it seems that she had something else in her blood. Would redemption have been possible with her at one time? I guess the case could be made that an evil person (even the Witch) could only be held responsible for the evil things that they did if they were given the opportunity to do the right thing. It's only fair not to judge someone unless they are given the chance to do good. She chose evil, but one can make a hypothetical situation in which she could have been (after redemption) made the opposite person from what she was. I speculated on Susan's future too, but The Last Battle didn't say for certain what her destiny was, and (to our knowledge) she wasn't as corrupted as the Witch. It's easier and more likely to redeem a villain like Susan who hasn't gone as far astray.

No can of worms, just a little speculation.

Larry W.

[carol]

The White Witch is definitely NOT human. She purports to be, but even in Charn we see that Jadis's people are not quite the same as us. Lewis didn't properly integrate the information about her, but it's clear that she is NOT human, has some giant blood, and a lot of artifice that suggests she is human. (I'd like to know more about the humanoid Charnites).

In the Space Trilogy Lewis made the inhabitants of Perelandra humans, in honour of the form taken by the One who ransomed our dark planet. Yet they were not descendants of Adam and Eve. When he had the Charnites seem human, perhaps he had this in mind, that they were of the same form but not of our Race? If they are a blend of human and giant, then it wouldn't be correct to say Jadis had no human blood.

This needs its own topic. When did we last discuss it?

[Tumnus's Books]

[splashen]

"Remember, it was the dwarfs that Lewis focused on in TLB to make a choice between the "prison of their own mind" and the chance to go through the Door, and certainly were not human."

Yes, but LWW, it was said that the White Queen was a descendant of Lilith, the Queen of Demons, hence an incarnation of evil.