If we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased. (C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory.)Are you "far too easily pleased"?
Monday, June 03, 2013
Wisdom from C.S. Lewis
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I'm certainly not pleased with CS Lewis. A snake in the grass, but no Christian. Do some research, examine the words and the fruit.
You're certainly free to your point of view. What makes me sad is when people say, "So-and-so said it so I'm not listening." Whether or not Lewis was a Christian, there is wisdom in what he said here.
Oh, and I have done some research and examined his words. I disagree with some of his theology, but don't have any reason to throw him under the bus for much of his literary good work.
"A snake in the grass, but no Christian"
That sentence makes no sense to me. Why be redundant? If the assumption is that he is a Christian, calling him a snake in the grass would imply that he's not; why add "but no Christian"? If it were "and no Christian", still redundant, but makes sense.
I've not done historical research on the man, but the consensus I was taught and from the words he's written, he seems to be a Christian. Like Stan, I don't always agree with his theology, and there are times he seems to take artistic license, but this is new to me about him not being a Christian.
I have no desire to crawl under the bus to partake of his "wisdom", but to warn others to beware. The danger of heretics like Lewis is their subtlety, a trait they share with their father. Richard Bennett of Berean Beacon should know about the dangers of Rome, since he was part of that system for 30 years. Here is one sound article from his site explaining the Lewis pitfall. http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/CS_Lewis_a_Bridge_to_Rome.pdf
Stefan, FYI the error you are invoking is a logical fallacy known as "ad hominem" -- attacking an idea by attacking the speaker. If you don't value the wisdom of the words, please feel free not to read.
So, your argument against Lewis is that he was a Roman Catholic in theory and thus none of his words are useful in the edification of Christians? What about Augustine? Or Aquinas? Or a host of other respected Catholic authors? Since they were Roman Catholic, God couldn't still use them? You should even go further, Solomon let his passions control him and his wives led him astray, so there goes Proverbs and parts of Psalms. David had an affair and even indirectly murdered his mistress' husband, there goes the rest of Psalms. Paul massacred Christians by the hundreds, boom, half the New Testament.
The premise that God can't use non-believers or even mistaken believers to accomplish His work is just plain wrong. You don't have to like C.S. Lewis to appreciate his words. Tom Cruise is a loony toon, but I still like his movies. And so what if Lewis has led people to Roman Catholicism? I'm sure there are an equal amount that have been led to Protestantism by him as well.
I'll put it another way. What does Lewis have that the Bible does not? We don't need to drink from poisoned wells when we have the pure fountain of God's word. Dig around about your idol Lewis and perhaps you'll reconsider your association and promotion of him.
Dear Stefan v,
At this point you've crossed the line from discussion to unfriendly discussion. Classifying Lewis as my "idol" is a lie. Nothing I've written, suggested, or thought classifies Lewis as anything near such a category.
What does he have that the Bible does not? With that line of thinking, what do Richard Bennett, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, or even I have that the Bible does not? With your line of thinking, you really ought to stop reading things other than the Bible.
As for me, I consider that the God of All Truth can offer glimpses of insight from the mouth of a donkey, so I'll take it where I can get it. No human speaker besides Christ and the inspired writers of Scripture will be right all the time. That doesn't stop me from benefiting from a thought, an insight, a turn of a phrase that corresponds to and highlights God's truth.
The contrast between Bennett, Edwards, Calvin, and I'll add Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle, F.W. Grant, John Gill, John Bunyan, and Arthur Pink (in no order of preference and not exclusively) and the likes of Lewis is: I am confident that these men are Christians, warts and all; whereas Lewis is not, by means of his own professed beliefs. They are not perfect men and never claimed it, and I don't take their every word as pure Truth. Lewis on the other hand, is fatally flawed and it is entirely Scriptural to warn about him and others, and to partake of none of their fare. I beg pardon for offense for calling Lewis your idol, but your defensiveness in clinging to him and justifying your association with him indicates to me it is an issue worth following up since I consider you a brother in The Lord. On my lengthy cyle ride today I pondered just how far a Christian can go in error before serious doubt can be voiced about their validity. Ok, I know we aren't able to judge with finality on the eternal fate of men, but we must be able to judge what manner of man we are dealing with....else all the warnings in Scripture to avoid heretics and apostates and give them no space would be meaningless. There are clear lines drawn in Scripture and if the church stuck to them we'd have a much healthier fellowship and also weather more opposition since we'd be far more dangerous and effective against the kingdom of darkness. As it is, apostacy and deceit abound and we have little power and are scattered and isolated....as predicted.
Fine. We will try "to partake of none of their fare." Now, if you can, referring to the quote I offered, could you please point out the biblical, theological, moral, spiritual, or logical error in that quote that we need to be careful to avoid.
Thank you.
Without the original Lewis text to determine the context, and lacking a clear idea of what you actually want to say, a difficult thing to do! Looking at the quote itself, is it the magnitude of our desire that is so paltry, or is it the object of our desire that is defiled? It's merely a wishy washy pious sounding thing to say, rather than being something with a Biblical application. How about, instead of Lewis' vagueness we go to the Bible direct rather than have it filtered through Lewis's distorted lens. What exactly is it you are trying to say, then? Are we to modify the nature of our desire, or the magnitude? Can we even do that of our own? No, it is The Lord who works in us to will and to do for His good pleasure...and so it is to Him we must go; and Lewis is not one of His spokesmen, else he'd have pointed us to God's word instead of supplying his own. Should we go to Galatians, or Romans? How about Corinthians, since the depravity of our day echoes that vile town's culture? Let's not beat about the bush; we have been given the sharpest Sword and if there is a problem to slay let's go for the throat. The blunt penknife of Lewis can go in the bin, it's worse than useless. Awaiting your clarification of purpose...
No, thanks. You're clear enough. "If someone I find offensive says it, I will accept nothing from it as of value. If someone I don't find offensive says it, I'll see if it might have some value. I will, in all cases, consider first the source before the content."
Since I am a sinner saved by grace and prone to error by nature, I would caution you against reading what I write in the future. As has been suggested by others in the past, "If I ran a church, I wouldn't what me to be in my congregation." Instead, I recommend reading only your Bible, the only viable source of error-free truth.
Wow, that is some pretty willful hatred of someone. Just curious, if the writings of man are so useless, why read blogs? Because now you are just being inconsistent. If your stance is, "We can read nothing of value but Scripture", then reading a blog is counter to that. If your stance is, "Anyone I don't like can't write something of value", then that is rather spiteful and limiting of the power of God to work through His creatures, and reading a blog is dangerous at best.
Please re-read my post of 6/04/2013 11:28 AM, Dave & Stan.
Please don't put words in my mouth...that is setting up a straw man to defeat with ease. How about "We must be sure that what we read is in accordance with Scripture" instead?
I do not limit the power of God to work through whatever and whomsoever He wants. I also do not twist this to permit me to dabble in pious sounding popular claptrap. Remember that Israel executed Balaam the honey voiced "prophet" when they got him. Warnings about that man and his kind continue even into Revelation, so perhaps I'm not being overcautious.
Lewis is objectionable because of his writing, not the other way around. He may have been affable and charming in person, but the poison in his pen is what determines whether or not I listen to him or warn folks off him. If I hate him, it's because he speaks lies in the name of The Lord and sets up obstacles on the pilgrim's path.
So, what was the point you were trying to make about our desires? Is it simply a matter of aspiring higher? If only the sinful heart were as easily vanquished as that...but then there would be no need of regeneration, and self sanctification is open to anyone with the will. Doesn't conform to Scripture, hence my objection to Lewis' doctrine, and my continued pursuit of this comment thread. How to deal with it Biblically? How about be transformed by the renewing of the mind, putting off the old dead man, not reforming but rejecting and replacing the dead flesh and its works...
I was referring to your attitude and the logic of your principle, not your words. You say God can use whomever He wants, but your practical position is that He can use whomever He wants as long as it's not C.S. Lewis.
And the reason that there is a quote by C.S. Lewis is not because it came from Lewis. It's because I believe there is truth there and I didn't say it. Offering the truth without recognizing the source is known as plagiarism.
So I offered what I believe to be truth regardless of the source. Humans, as sinners, want too little. We want the sin of this world while God offers us heaven. We want the fleeting joys of sin while God offers the lasting joys of obedience. He offers us Himself and all we're really concerned about is ourselves. Even as Christians we find it hard to imagine all that God promises us, so we settle for comfort and pleasure -- lies, lies, lies. We think we want the best, but until we want God and His promises, we're wanting very little. There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. (You can figure out the source of that last statement.)
Thank you for the explanation of your intent. It would be the same old problem...taking God at His word. That went wrong from the beginning, under that peculiar tree, with a little help from a third party. I strongly doubt Lewis has a Scriptural view of depravity and the sole cure, though. As in OT Israel, false prophets abound, for the purpose of testing and refining...or sealing condemnation for the itchy eared goats. Who makes us to differ? It is The Lord, for His glory. Balaam and Lewis are but tools in God's hands, but He has not left us clueless as to how to deal with them. Mark them and avoid them. Trying to be pragmatic and cherrypick the truthful bits out of a deceiver's spiel is dangerous. It's not as though we lack source material. We are in an age of misinformation and disinformation through overload. If you can't suppress truth, swamp it, seems to be the strategy of the day in so many areas. Watch out for the little addon packages when someone has got your head nodding to some bit of wisdom...
Post a Comment