The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum 'Mere Christianity' by CS Lewis a Review

Hi
Recently I had reason (which I will not mention here), to think about CS Lewis's book 'Mere Christianity'.
Some Reformed Christians have recommended this book for apologetic purposes. I for one can not recommend the book because of some of his bad theology. Other than a few famous quotes from the book, which I believe are very good; it doesn’t make up for bad theology.
Knowing this topic had been discussed before on the Highway, I looked up the thread again. However, unless I missed it, although it was not recommended, it did not say why.

For that reason I googled “’Mere Christianity’ a Reformed review”; what I found, even though I don’t know very much about the reviewer, explained quite well and I might add fairly, his serious concerns about the book. I will say, however that the reviewer said it was a good book in which he benefited from. I got the feeling that the reviewer really wanted to endorse the book, because it was well written.

Personally, I think if it is true that it is well written, yet has bad theology, it makes it even more dangerous; especially the nature of the bad theology.

I thought because of the influence of this book, others might like to read the review.
http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2011/01/28/cautions-for-mere-christianity/

Tom

I think that C.S. Lewis was a brilliant fictional writer and for that reason alone, his writings can be appreciated. Great discernment however should be used for his theology is heretical and must be rejected. One past discussion may be found HERE

Keep in mind that Lewis did not hold to the inerrancy of the Scripture.

All the more reason, why it is dangerous.

1. I do not trust ANYTHING that comes out of the "Gospel Coalition"!!

2. Kevin DeYoung is hardly a trustworthy source. See my very brief comment HERE. He is very active in the "New Calvinist" movement as are all the founders of the Gospel Coalition. Do a quick search of E.S. William's articles on "New Calvinism" for more eye-opening information about the movement and the heretical doctrines and practices held by most of the leaders of it.

3. Lastly, as I have mentioned before and even on this board, C.S. Lewis was 'absorbed' into Evangelicalism in the very early '70s and perhaps even before that time period as one of the "great" apologists for the Christian Faith. His book, Mere Christianity was the #1 book recommended that unbelievers read with the end goal that it would someone convince them to become Christian. As Chestnutmare has already mentioned, Lewis might be considered a talented writer of fiction, but his theology was bankrupt, at least to those who hold tenaciously to the historic Protestant Christian faith.

Pilgrim

My point in using that particular critique, was not whether he was sound himself.
It was whether or not he is accurately reviewing the book. I think he is, yet I also don't think he takes a strong enough stances against the book.
Perhaps you might want to deal with what the critique actually says?

MY point is that I would prefer to use someone who is sound in doctrine and life to critique someone who is not vs. using someone who is likewise unsound in doctrine and/or life. The real danger is that some/many may not be able to discern where such a person doing the critique is in error and who is held in high esteem in some circles thus luring such a person to read more of such a one and be drawn away from the truth in other areas. I simply think it unwise and perhaps if you had taken a bit more time you could have found someone who is sound and who does not represent such a spurious group as the Gospel Coalition. (this last remark will most likely cause some/much negative reaction from those who think the Gospel Coalition and/or some or all of its leaders to be 'saints')

Oh, yes I could most definitely critique DeYoung's critique of C.S. Lewis, particularly where he takes Lewis' view of the atonement to task. But... I have a better idea!! Why don't YOU critique his statements concerning the atonement since you think he correctly found fault with Lewis' view.

Pilgrim
If he was correctly interpreting Lewis, then I think he gave an accurate portrayal of his concerns. Not sure I need to say anything more on that front.
I will say however, like yourself I have some serious concerns about the whole "New Calvinist" movement. Though I must say, that a few in the movement such as Dr. Albert Mohler and Mark Dever, I have benefited from on the past and can't understand why they identify with the movement.
Especially them both being Cessationists.
But then again I have benefited from JI Packer, but I now read him with a lot of discernment.

Tom

Perhaps I failed to make myself clear in my response to you??

DeYoung's criticism of Lewis' view of the atonement is what I am mainly wanting to address. His criticism of Lewis' error(s) concerning the atonement is NOT correct because he faults Lewis for not being agreement with his own faulty view. Yes, Lewis' view of the atonement is woefully wrong and so is DeYoung's view. Sooooo, someone could easily read that section and believe that DeYoung's view of the atonement is the orthodox view of the Church and thus biblical, which it is most certainly not. I'm going to assume that you didn't even pick that up, correct?

Thus, that is why I asked you to critique DeYoung's statement(s) on the atonement in his criticism of Lewis, which thus far has been ignored. It would be most helpful for you to do so and put your thoughts here so that many others can benefit from them and/or the exchange that might ensue thereafter.

Lastly, I know you like Mark Dever and have made several 'excuses' for things which are unacceptable and not consistent with biblical teaching. But the truth is, he IS most definitely involved with the New Calvinist movement. The same is true of Albert Mohler, who I once had great respect. You should simply accept the fact that men who were once sound in the faith, at least in appearance, do fall away from the truth and get involved in unbiblical ventures, heresy and sinful behavior. And the vast majority of those who do such things are leaders within the church. There are a number of once notable men who taught at Westminster Theological Seminary who are now teaching damnable heresy. This is true of pastors as well. Such things are not to be seen as unusual but rather they are prophetic fulfillments which the NT clearly tells us will happen. The difficulty is sometimes when it becomes personal and/or it happens close to home. One's response is most important; either try to explain it away and defend those guilty, or accept the fact, pray for them but do what is necessary to expose them and prevent or at least diminish their negative influence with the hope of keeping many from being carried away with them.

Now, please read through that very small section of DeYoung's criticism of Lewis' views of the atonement and share your thoughts on DeYoung's view, albeit it is quite short but I think telling enough.

As I was contemplating this thread in regard to critiques, criticism, etc., it came to me to meditate on what Scripture teaches on the subject of DISCERNMENT. Some of the passages that were pressed upon my mind and upon my own heart were the following, which I include without comment, for the benefit of all and no one in particular...

Hosea 6:6 (KJV) "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."

Romans 12:2 (KJV) "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (ASV) "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh (for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds), casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ;"

Hebrews 5:12-14 (ASV) "For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But solid food is for fullgrown men, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil."

Ephesians 1:17-18 (ASV) "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him; having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,"

Colossians 1:9-10 (ASV) "For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray and make request for you, that ye may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to walk worthily of the Lord unto all pleasing, bearing fruit in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;"

2 Peter 3:15-18 (ASV) "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; as also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, knowing [these things] beforehand, beware lest, being carried away with the error of the wicked, ye fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him [be] the glory both now and for ever. Amen."

Pilgrim

Now it is me that is confused; but perhaps that is because I am misunderstanding what DeYoung wrote concerning the atonement? I didn't see anything I would disagree with at least on that topic.
Before I started writing this post I consulted with several Reformed sources on the atonement such as RC Sproul and didn't see anything conflicting with what DeYoung said either.

Just to add a little concerning Mohler and Dever. Although I have been blessed in the past by their writing; never the less their involvement in the New Calvinism movement has made me skeptical.
For example, if you have read Mohler on the subjects of non-Cessationism, mysticism and theistic evolution; you will know that he is against them. Yet, if that is true why then does he identify himself with a movement that has adherents who hold to those things? I have tried in the past to contact both Dever and Mohler to ask about this, yet I did not get a response.
Does that mean that both Dever and Mohler are not worth reading anymore? If I answer yes to that, to be consistent, I must also do the same with JI Packer, because although Packer wrote what I consider my all time favourite articles; he is involved in ECT and has said in recent years some very questionable things. One example, is when my pastor was taking courses years ago, Packer was one of his professors and he had the privilege of talking to Dr. Packer one on one and Dr. Packer asked him if he was “confessional”? My pastor said yes he is and the response he received back left my pastor confused. Dr. Packer said: “I could never be confessional...”.
I would also mention that in recent years, JI Packer has endorsed many heretical books, to which Reformed reviewers have said that an endorsement by JI Packer no longer means anything.
My point is that, I have learned (or am trying to learn, ) to read everyone with discernment. Believe me, that does not mean that I am going to read heretics like Brian McLaren.


Signed
Confused

You say that you consulted with R.C. Sproul? Did you (personally) speak to him directly regarding DeYoung? That is what it sounds like. But then the rest of your statement becomes confusing to me. Okay, did you read something that Sproul wrote? If so, what was it? I would like to read this for myself.

Chesnutmare
No I did not consult with RC Sproul personally, I used the words "Reformed sources".
Below is one of them.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/vicarious-substitution-2/
Reading what RC Sproul says here, where does it conflict with what DeYoung said in the link?
DeYoung says the following:
What am I missing?
Tom

Pilgrim said: "DeYoung's criticism of Lewis' view of the atonement is what I am mainly wanting to address. His criticism of Lewis' error(s) concerning the atonement is NOT correct because he faults Lewis for not being agreement with his own faulty view. Yes, Lewis' view of the atonement is woefully wrong and so is DeYoung's view. Sooooo, someone could easily read that section and believe that DeYoung's view of...

Thus, that is why I asked you to critique DeYoung's statement(s) on the atonement in his criticism of Lewis, which thus far has been ignored. It would be most helpful for you to do so and put your thoughts here so that many others can benefit from them and/or the exchange that might ensue thereafter. "

Pilgrim
What you appear to be saying here (at least to me) is that DeYoung believes in Penal Substitutional Atonement which you believe is not biblical.
That is where my confusion is.
You seem to want me to critique a position that I agree with.
Tom

1. I am saying no such thing!!! I hold tenaciously that Christ's atonement was penal, vicarious and substitutionary in nature. In short, as you should well know, my view of the atonement is 100% in agreement with all of the Reformed Confessions and that taught by Calvin, Edwards, Owen, etc. etc. etc........

2. Have you actually read anything other than that short section on the atonement which Kevin DeYoung has written? Do you recall that I once posted as a poll question on this board a statement of man's depravity which I asked members to vote whether they thought it was biblical or not? On its face, it appeared to be solid and orthodox. After the poll closed I then revealed that it was written by the Remonstrants in 1617 which was submitted to the Synod of Dort. When all of their statements were taken as a whole what they wrote was heretical because what they meant in their statement on depravity was not what it could be understood to mean from the words used. [HINT]