C.S. Lewis: Scripture Inerrancy vs God's Goodness

[Alex Smith]

Thanks to http://www.davidbergan.com/Summa/C._S._ ... Beversluis

Dear Mr. Beversluis

Yes. On my view one must apply something of the same sort of explanation to, say, the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua. I see the grave danger we run by doing so; but the dangers of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him 'good' and worshiping Him, is still greater danger. The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible.

To this some will reply 'ah, but we are fallen and don't recognize good when we see it.' But God Himself does not say that we are as fallen at all that. He constantly, in Scripture, appeals to our conscience: 'Why do ye not of yourselves judge what is right?' -- 'What fault hath my people found in me?' And so on. Socrates' answer to Euthyphro is used in Christian form by Hooker. Things are not good because God commands them; God commands certain things because he sees them to be good. (In other words, the Divine Will is the obedient servant to the Divine Reason.) The opposite view (Ockham's, Paley's) leads to an absurdity. If 'good' means 'what God wills' then to say 'God is good' can mean only 'God wills what he wills.' Which is equally true of you or me or Judas or Satan.

But of course having said all this, we must apply it with fear and trembling. Some things which seem to us bad may be good. But we must not consult our consciences by trying to feel a thing good when it seems to us totally evil. We can only pray that if there is an invisible goodness hidden in such things, God, in His own good time will enable us to see it. If we need to. For perhaps sometimes God's answer might be What is that to thee?' The passage may not be 'addressed to our (your or my) condition' at all.

I think we are v. much in agreement, aren't we?

Yours sincerely, C. S. Lewis

[WE ARE ALL BROTHERS]

The forever eloquent and humble C.S. Lewis. Thanks for sharing Alex.

[AllanS]

Brilliant.

CSL agrees with me on this matter. Therefore he must be right.

[SLJ]

Yes, Lewis says it well.

Sonia

[Alex Smith]

CSL agrees with me on this matter. Therefore he must be right.

[pilgrim]

Superb post Alex - thanks.

And AllanS - I'm really getting into your posts in recent weeks. More and more. Keep them coming!

[JaelSister]

Excellent post. Lewis is someone I dearly want to meet in the new earth
Just pondering, but is the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy even biblical? Do scriptures themselves claim this? When it says all scripture is inspired for doctrine, correction and reproof, how do we know which scripture it's referring to? And does inspired equate to inerrant? Many other things are inspired by God, yet we don't necessarily consider them inerrant or perfect due to that fact. I kind of like the Orthodox take, that scripture is a part of church tradition and part of the way God reveals Himself to us, rather than scripture being the source of the church. It's a subtle difference, but it gives a much more balanced and cautious approach to scriptural interpretation and to absolute fundamentalism.

[Sherman]

Thanks for sharing this Alex.

I no longer believe scripture to be "inerrant", but rather believe it to be "inspired", a subtle but significant difference. In fact, I see some passages and writers more "inspired" than others within scripture; and I appeal to some writers for clarity on doctrine (ex. Paul) and others for encouragement (ex. John). Is scripture "God's Word to man" or "Man's word about God"? Is scripture "The Word of God" or is it "A Revelation of The Word of God"? Both can be seen as a continuum, with scholars throughout history in various places on that continuum.

I view the Revelation of God to be like a target. Jesus is the bull's-eye. He is the perfect revelation of God in the flesh. His actions, attitudes, and doctrine are wholly God! And when Jesus left this earth, He promised to send the Spirit who would guide us into all truth. Thus a personal relationship with God is key, foundational to me. And it is very interesting that Jesus did not write a book of law or doctrine for His followers to follow, but instead focused their attention on something ethereal, something one just cannot fully get his hands on or around, the Spirit - which to me speaks more of feeling and emotion and logic and reason than hard and fast "rules" or law. The "law" of Christ is "love", not a list of rules.

Anyhow, back to my target analogy. The bull's eye is Jesus, the very real person and with Him the Spirit, the person, and a very real relationship with Him. The second ring, one step removed from perfection, is scripture, writings that the body of Christ has found inspirational for generations! The 3rd ring are other writings, not so widely or long accepted. The 4th ring is the present day body of Christ, the church. And the 5th ring are the inspired writings of others, non-Christians. And the 6th ring is creation itself, for God can speak to us through the stars, birds, and ants - IF we're listening. The further one moves from the bull's eye, the more discerning one must be. But if one is listening, one can hear God speak through them all! I don't know how many times I've heard God speak words of wisdom through complete heathens! Shoot, Balaam heard God speak through a donkey! And Jesus said, consider the birds and the lilies!

The key, I believe, is to be listening, searching, hungry, assuming that one does not know everything or have a clear understanding of God, to be like a child, trusting, growing, and learning, having faith in Our Father to protect us, guide us, and teach us. Oh, to have the faith and wonder of a child!

[Luke]

I imagine this quote of Lewis wouldn't be as popular on the forum as that earlier quote:

"[Helll] begins with a grumbling mood, and yourself still distinct from it prehaps criticising it. And yourself, in a dark hour, may will that mood, embrace it. Ye can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticise the mood, nor even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself going on forever like a machine." - The Great Divorce p75

I was also tempted to type that section from The Last Battle where all the animals and people look into Aslan's eyes and either choose him and life or reject him and rush away into his shadow.

Anyway the point is we all choose the bits of Lewis we like (or think are true)!

[BirdOfTheEgg]

I was also tempted to type that section from The Last Battle where all the animals and people look into Aslan's eyes and either choose him and life or reject him and rush away into his shadow.

I'm kinda curious what Lewis means by that. Are these people who make the choice still in their physical bodies, affected by all sorts of stuff collected over their lives? Or are they in some new bodies, i.e., not exactly themselves? I'm curious who makes that choice and why that choice has any significance.

There's also that section from The Last Battle where a worshiper of Tash is accepted by Aslan. Considered heretical by many.

C. S. Lewis was an interesting guy.

[Luke]

Lewis is whatever you want him to be.

[Bob Wilson]

Luke,

You're so right about the selective appeal of Lewis, and that he indeed did not follow his mentor, MacDonald, on the ability of God's sovereign love to overcome hell. He did lessen the difficulty of ECT by recreating 'hell' as a place so tame that no one could ever prefer to leave it (did Jesus portray it as something that would be that appreciated?). But I think the reason we eccentrics are stunned by his quote, is precisely that despite believing that he must reject ultimate hope for much of God's creation, he still seems to grasp the rationale that is compelling to universalists: that believing in a God who sponsors unredeemed 'atrocities' would require the radical denial of one of the most compelling truths that God Himself has graciously given to us made in His image, a moral conscience and ability to recognize goodness.

[AllanS]

Then there will be no you left to criticise the mood,

If there is no you left, you cannot be in hell. Lewis's hell winds inexorably down to annihilation.

Remember the Tragedian? When it swallows the real man, the Woman (his loving wife) walks away. There is no one left to whom she can speak.

[Sherman]

I imagine this quote of Lewis wouldn't be as popular on the forum as that earlier quote:

"[Helll] begins with a grumbling mood, and yourself still distinct from it prehaps criticising it. And yourself, in a dark hour, may will that mood, embrace it. Ye can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticise the mood, nor even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself going on forever like a machine." - The Great Divorce p75

I was also tempted to type that section from The Last Battle where all the animals and people look into Aslan's eyes and either choose him and life or reject him and rush away into his shadow.

Anyway the point is we all choose the bits of Lewis we like (or think are true)!

Luke, just because someone believes differently than I do about one subject, does not mean that I do not or cannot appreciate what he shares on another subject. In fact, I would love to be part of a fellowship that was built simply upon a love for God and love for people, that allowed people to believe differently based upon their own convictions, that rejoiced in the great diversity in the body of Christ, whose foundation was love and respect for one another and a sense of humility recognizing that we could all have it wrong. I don't have to understand or misunderstand everything the way you do in order for me to appreciate you personally and greatly appreciate much of what you share concerning your believes. And because I value and respect you I'll seriously consider what you have to share, especially things that are different from what I believe. (I use "you" rhetorically, though it also includes you personally.)

[Alex Smith]

Lewis is whatever you want him to be.

as much as I'd love to say he's a universalist, as far as I know he only ever got part way there, although I reckon he is now

C.S. Lewis on the graph?

C.S. Lewis on the graph.png (12.57 KiB) Viewed 3573 times

He is a widely respected writer, so even though I don't agree with everything he said, it's very interesting to read his opinion.

How close did Lewis get to universalism? This close!

Thanks Sherman, I found your "bull's-eye" post very helpful.

did Jesus portray it [Hell] as something that would be that appreciated?

My thoughts exactly.

Lewis is someone I dearly want to meet in the new earth

Amen!

Just pondering, but is the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy even biblical? Do scriptures themselves claim this? When it says all scripture is inspired for doctrine, correction and reproof, how do we know which scripture it's referring to? And does inspired equate to inerrant? Many other things are inspired by God, yet we don't necessarily consider them inerrant or perfect due to that fact. I kind of like the Orthodox take, that scripture is a part of church tradition and part of the way God reveals Himself to us, rather than scripture being the source of the church. It's a subtle difference, but it gives a much more balanced and cautious approach to scriptural interpretation and to absolute fundamentalism.

Thanks JaelSister, I'm pondering the same things at the moment.

[BirdOfTheEgg]

Lewis is whatever you want him to be.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/C._S._Lewis#An_ ... rthodox.3F

[Alex Smith]

Lewis is whatever you want him to be.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/C._S._Lewis#An_ ... rthodox.3F

Great example however it's interesting to see his appreciation for EO as they have produced & influenced some of the greatest universalists.

[JasonPratt]

Personally, I was interested to see that he had mailed correspondence with Beversluis! My friend Dr. Victor Reppert (who also knows or knew Dr. B) has often commented on B's critiques of Lewis, pro and con, but I don't recall reading any report from him that there was correspondence with Lewis himself!

(I wonder if Victor even knows? I may ping him and ask...)

[corpselight]

i like Lewis...i don't agree with everything he said or postulated (and wouldn't expect to!) but i liked his willingness to ask tough questions and theorise. he apparently wasn't afraid that God would smite him for asking hard questions and truly seeking.
i got alot out of his writings, and was raised on the Chronicles of Narnia.

to me it's interesting that not only did he suggest a nicer hell, but he suggested the possibility of post mortem repentance. he even explored the implications if there were sentient alien species in the universe on our salvation as well as theirs. he questions Scriptural inerrancy.
to me, a very courageous Christian that God used and still uses mightily!

for me, it's that attitude of wanting to learn, that humble asking of our Teacher and reasoning with his friends that i want to emulate. that's the bit (Luke ) that i take.

[Wormwood]

I ought to be fair and declare a personal connection. In Cambridge I was a student of Hugh Sykes-Davies who had, in earlier years, regularly shared beer with CSL in The Mitre.

What I find interesting on this subject is that in "Reflections on the Psalms" he made a comment about divine truth seen through the distortion of human authorship.

My personal take on this is that scripture may not be inerrant, but it is what we engineers call "Fault Tolerant". In the same way that a 747 doean't fall out of the sky if one fuel pump stops working, the message of the bible as a whole is clear when it is read as a whole, even if there are localised errors in transmission or translation.

[AllanS]

"Fault Tolerant"

I like that idea.

Only an idiot would try to find a recipe for scones in the white pages. A cook book is not a phone book. In the same way, if people treat the Bible as modern history or science, they will be disappointed. Of course they will find "errors", basically because it's not that sort of book!

The real problem has been preachers who have told the world that the Bible is scientific and historical (when it obviously isn't.) What a dumb thing to do, and we're still suffering the fallout.