Book Review
WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE
By C. S. Lewis
A Reformed Perspective
David S. Petrie
C. S. Lewis was a man consumed by faith. His contribution to evangelical Christian literature has proved invaluable and profitable to all Christians, regardless of theological distinctives. He was a man who crossed denominational boundaries, spoke to Christians (and non-Christians) in a way that places him in company with few others. C. S. Lewis was an Ambassador.
C. S. Lewis was a follower of Jesus Christ. He was a man well worthy of respect by those both in and out of the reformed camp. I have heard, and read, from many dismissing the man because he was not distinctly reformed. On the contrary, may I open with these borrowed words:
Although he was not a professed Calvinist, Lewis was indeed a professed Christian, and his professed atheism the Lord sovereignly overcame by taking him from his own dark, atheistic world, where it is always winter but never Christmas, and placing him in the world of Jesus Christ, who is on the move to destroy every stronghold, argument, and lofty opinion raised against God so that we might take every thought captive to obey Christ and to live coram Deo, before His face and in His realm forever.
By His grace, the Lord took captive the mind of C. S. Lewis, and Lewis, in turn, captivated the minds of Christians throughout the world as he penned words such as these: “If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this.” (Burk Parsons, Tabletalk Magazine, Ligonier Ministries, January, 2008).
In fact, R.C. Sproul, the reformed theological titan of the 21st century says this: “C.S. Lewis emerged as a twentieth-century icon in the world of Christian literature. His prodigious work combining acute intellectual reasoning with unparalleled creative imagination made him a popular figure not only in the Christian world but in the secular world as well.” (Tabletalk, January, 2008). Intellectual, he was. Very few Christian leaders have been raised to labor for the King in such a way. Lewis was an
C. S. Lewis’ book Mere Christianity is a collection of five books, and Book II, What Christians believe, has been published separately. This is a short theological essay on this great little book. Here, Lewis has plainly laid out the Christian fain in apologetic fashion. In five chapters, he gives us our options, and ends with “The Practical Conclusion.” In this essay, I intend to reveal the brilliance of Lewis’ method of communicating the Christian faith theologically, and apologetically. The real brilliance here, actually, is found in what you don’t read. Lewis had the ability to communicate theology without being theological. For the readers of this essay however, I intend to expand upon the currents that run beneath the flow of thought which Lewis shared here with his reader and listeners.
The Rival Conceptions Of God
Lewis begins his argument by discussing ‘religion’. Specifically, does God exist? Or, are we a cosmic nothing created by nothing, and ending with nothing? This is a fair question to start with, for how are we going to explain the saving details of our faith, unless we first establish the mere existence of God?
It is absurd for anyone to deny the existence of God. The knowledge of God can be found throughout history, and in every culture on earth. John Calvin called this the sensus divinitatus; the ‘sense of the divine’. We are all born with it. I liken this to the very fingerprint of God on the heart. In Paul’s letter to the Romans, he wrote: “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them” (
It seems to me that in this case we should translate it by “repress.” We intentionally choose a word which has a specific meaning in psychological literature. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the word repression as “a process by which unacceptable desires or impulses are excluded from consciousness and left to operate in the unconscious.” This seems to argue with what Paul says here about human life. But we must mention that the word repression has received a wider meaning in more recent psychology. In Freudian psychology it specifically refers to unconscious desires of a more or less sexual nature. In more recent psychology it is also applied to desires and impulses of a very different nature. The impulses or desires which are repressed may be very valuable. Anything that goes contrary to the accepted patterns of life or to the predominant popular ideas may be repressed. Usually this happens, and the results can be far-reaching. We are reminded of this psychological phenomenon recently discovered by Paul’s usage of the word. He says that man always naturally represses God’s truth because it is contrary to his pattern of life” (J. H. Bavinck, The Church Between the Temple and Mosque (Grand Rapid: Erdmans, 118-119)
Again, we have what that which is contrary, the subject of repression. Naturally, because man is self-seeking by nature, the easiest way out for a simple mind is Atheism. Deny God, and you would not have to face the reality of justice. We are free to live our lives antinomian¹ in respect to His law.
However, considering by consensus that God exists (and this is without launching into the many other various arguments that one could), we must honestly conclude with the clear absurdity of Atheism... Why this is a good starting point for explaining what Christians believe, becomes much clearer when we examine the “flip-side of the coin” position.
There are really two main positions to be had, and all persons fall into one or the other. Mr. Lewis describes them as follows; One: that there is a God or gods, and two: that there is not. The majority fall with position one – that there is a God. Christianity falls in with this position. I believe what becomes the stumbling block, or the burning issue for many, is the idea of justice. The Atheist camp will say that the idea of justice is only a man-made rule, or a kind of standard set in place in order to ‘intelligently’ allow human beings to live peaceable lives, and sustain order. But why? And where did the sense of justice come from? Obviously, if we can see that injustice abounds, then where did this awareness come from? It certainly did not come from our own imagination. Not only this, but this concept of justice just makes (common) sense. Atheism, properly understood, would reject the necessity of justice... Survival of the fittest.
In his book Reasonable Faith, Theologian and Philosopher William Lane Craig shares a development of the moral argument expressed by William Sorley (1855-1935). Here, Craig comments:
Sorley argues that the theistic account of the natural and moral orders is the superior world view. For we have seen that moral values or ideals are an objective part of reality and that they reside in persons. The problem is that no finite person has ever fully realized all moral value. The moral ideal is nowhere fully actualized in the finite world, though it is presently valid, that is, binding and obligatory for the finite world. But how can something be objective and valid if it does not exist? Physical laws, by contrast, are fully realized in the world. So no further explanation of their validity is required. Therefore, if the moral ideal is to be valid for reality, it must be fully realized in an existent that is both personal and eternal, that is, God (p.90).
Here, Mr. Lewis comments as if directly in response to Sorley:
Consequently Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning (What Christians Believe [WCB], p.14)
Atheism is too simple. So, let’s add that there is a God, but that’s it; throw out doctrines, the idea of justice, etc. God is a God of love, and therefore, it will all work out in the end. The problem with this idea, is that we live in a world full of bad people, and bad things happening all the time. Therefore, reality is far from simple, and so must be theism.
______________________________
¹ Antinomianism expresses the concept that moral law is irrelevant for the Christian. The word may be broken down from the Greek anti (against), and nomos (law). The antinomian insists that the Law of God is not binding, nor required in this life.
The Invasion
Reality has it, that there is good, and there is bad. This is the progression of thought which leads to a ‘Good Power’, and ‘Bad Power’. This view is called Dualism. This, as Lewis explains, is sensible, however it does have a catch to it. This view holds that both are independent, and both are eternal. This cannot be however, because there must be a first cause. The fact that there is a Good Power and Bad Power is obvious, and now we cannot ignore the need for doctrine. The problems now realized leave no other alternative. How else can we answer the flood of questions that now arise? Which power is right?
Lewis comments:
One of the things that surprised me when I first read the New Testament seriously, was that it talked so much about a Dark Power in the universe – a mighty evil spirit who was held to be the power behind death and disease, and sin. The difference is that Christianity thinks this Dark Power was created by God, and was good when he was created, and went wrong. Christianity agrees with Dualism that this universe is at war. But it does not think that it is a war between independent powers. It thinks it is a civil war, a rebellion, and that we are living in a part of the universe occupied by the rebel (WCB, p. 33-34).
A profound truth put in very simple terms. It is a great gift to speak deep thoughts such as these, yet keep the message simple enough that even a child could understand. Not only this, Lewis just had his way of communicating that could be readily accepted across denominational lines. As Dr. Sinclair B. Ferguson once commented: “Lewis… employed his imaginative genius in the case of a more mainstream orthodox, if not consistently evangelical, Christianity”. This is all Lewis set for his goal, and as a result, his books have been enjoyed by the church universal for many, many years.
God created the heavens and the earth, and all that was in them. God also declared that this was all “very good” (Gen. 1:31). But then the invasion. The bad guy enters, and sin appears to destroy this wonderful plan set up by God. Or did he? Well, not so fast. The Westminster Confession of Faith has a comment worth referencing:
Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory (WCF, VI.I).
Believing in a sovereign God, we can never think that God was taken by surprise. We can never assume that anything can happen that does happen that He has not purposed, or at least allowed in advance for His purpose and good pleasure. In this very purposive statement, God tells us that He had a reason for allowing this ‘Dark Power’ to enter His creation; “For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all” (Rom 11:3).
Make no mistake about it, God is never blind-sighted, God is never thwarted. He never has to come up with a plan B. Jonathan Edwards wrote these related words with regard to the fall, illustrating the point perfectly:
…God must be greatly disappointed in these events; and so the grand scheme and contrivance for our redemption, and destroying the works of the devil by the Messiah, and all the great things God has done in the prosecution of these designs, must be only the fruits of His own disappointment, and contrivances of His to mend and patch up, as well as He could, His system which originally was all very good, and perfectly beautiful, but was marred, broken, and confounded by the free will of angels and men (The Freedom of the Will, 131-132).
How can this be? Do we not serve a sovereign God? I ask you, how could such a God described by Edwards be sovereign? Well, the sarcasm is evident. He was trying to make the point clear by paining an absurd picture. R. C. Sproul does an excellent job of tying this up with these words:
Because God is sovereign and His will can never be frustrated, we can be sure that nothing happens over which He is not in control. He at least must “permit” whatever happens to happen. Yet even when God passively permits things to happen, He chooses to permit them in that He always has the power and right to intervene and prevent the actions and events of this world. Insofar as He lets things happen, He has “willed” them in a certain sense. (Essential Truths, p. 67)
So there we have it. God exists. So does the invading force. So where do we go from here?
The Shocking Alternative
Now Lewis discusses the human will, and the concept of rescue. I find it interesting that the nature of both of these subjects is highly contested. God has a will. The Enemy has a will. We have a will. How do these work together? Well, as a clue to the meaning of the word “will”, we must understand that God’s will is distinct from our will. This is not to say that our will cannot be in His will, rather, God is infinite, and we are finite creatures (so is the enemy). In no way can the finite comprehend the infinite.
Let’s discuss this for a moment. We as men may be able to apprehend (know of) God, but never comprehend (fully know) Him. Logic necessitates this position. God transcends all human reasoning (and by the way, it is our reasoning which gets most of us into trouble in the first place). On the incomprehensibility of God, Bavinck also has this to say:
There is between Him and us a distance as between the infinite and the finite, as between eternity and time, as between eternity and time, as between being and becoming, as between the All-in-all and nothingness. However little we may know of God, even the slightest even the slightest notion concerning Him represents Him as a being exalted infinitely high above the creature. Holy Scripture corroborates this as strongly as possible; yet it presents a doctrine concerning God which fully maintains His knowability. For example, the Bible never makes any attempt to prove the existence of God but assumes this; and it presupposes all along that man has an ineradicable idea of that existence, and that he has a certain knowledge of the being of God: an idea and a knowledge which are not the result of man’s own study and research, but of the fact that God on His part has revealed Himself both in an ordinary and in an extraordinary manner, has manifested Himself in nature and in history, in prophecy and miracle. Accordingly, in Scripture the knowability of God is never represented as a doubtful matter. The fool may say in his heart, “There is no God”; he who opens his eyes receives from every side the testimony of His existence, of His eternal power and Godhead, Is. 40:26; Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:19,20. The purpose of God’s revelation according to Scripture is this very thing: that man shall learn to know God, and hence may have life eternal, John 17:3; 20:31” (Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, The Banner of Truth Trust, 14-15).
This illustrates the difference between apprehending God, and actually comprehending Him. He is incomprehensible, yet knowable. I go to great length here to illustrate a point: so many apparently have things all figured out. I hear it all the time, that God made a perfect world, but in the garden something went terribly wrong; you are suffering adversity because of sin in your life; God could not exist because of all the evil in the world. Weak examples, but you get my point. To assume that we have God figured out is the height of arrogance:
Isaiah 40: 13-14: “Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, or as His counselor has informed Him? With whom did He consult and with who gave Him understanding? And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge, and informed Him of the way of understanding?”
Isaiah 40:28b: “…His understanding is inscrutable.”
Isaiah 55:8-9: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways” declares the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
Romans 11:33-36: “Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or, who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to Him again? For from Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.”
1 Corinthians 2:16a: “For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him?
Now, to the will. Lewis opens this chapter with an observation, begging three questions:
“Christians then, believe that an evil power has made himself for the present the Prince of this World. And, of course, that raises problems. Is this state of affairs in accordance with God’s will or not? If it is, He is a strange God, you will say: and if it is not, how can anything happen contrary to the will of a being with absolute power?” (WCB, p.39)
Lewis goes on to explain how things can be in the will of another one way, yet not in another. For example, the mother trying to teach her children to keep their room tidy, yet one night she goes up to find her children’s room a mess. The messy room is against her will, but the fact that she gave her children the freedom to leave a messy room was also an exercise of her will.¹
When we talk about the will of God, we generally do so in three ways: God’s decretive, sovereign, and His hidden will. The first one, I will mention only by way of clarification. God’s sovereign will is that will that must come to pass simply because God willed it. God is God, and for His will to be under any condition outside of Himself would take the “God-hood” out of God. Sovereignty means rule, or power, and because God is the Creator and Sustainer of all that is, then any threat period, is illogical. As I mentioned on the outset, I purpose to write on the current which runs below (yet is contained in) the words penned by C. S. Lewis in this brief summary of the Christian faith. With that in mind, the seventh question of the
Q. What are the decrees of God?
A. The decrees of God are His eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His will, whereby for His own glory, He has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.
I love this, as this is perhaps the best declaration of the sovereignty of God ever written. Here, you have a summary of what we mean by God’s sovereign will.
The confusion in the church universal,² generally falls into one of the other two categories. The Scriptural basis for these categories can be found in Deuteronomy 29: 29, where we read:
“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.” The first part of this verse is referring to what we call the decretive will, and the last part, is referring to the perceptive.
God’s decretive will is often commonly referred to His sovereign will. The two are very close. The only difference (and this is my distinction), is that God’s sovereign will is the will of God which includes all that He purposes, every event and intention for His agenda including all secondary factors. This will is all inclusive. The decretive will is that which concern the details (such as life events, world history, predestination, etc). This aspect of God’s will involves decisions made within the Godhead that work out the events in God’s kingdom agenda, in ways we could never understand nor anticipate. Examples of God’s decretive will; is the Word brought to the Ethiopian on the road to
The reason why it (happiness [and human reasoning] outside of God) can never succeed is this. God made us; invented us as a man invents an engine. A car is meant to run on gasoline, and it would not run properly on anything else. Now God designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other.
So, we have a problem. What do we do about this unavoidable problem of sin? Remember, God created the world and all that is in it, and it was very good. Then, in the garden, something went terribly wrong. The results of this problem extend to all the farthest reaches of creation. Mankind is now without hope of fellowship with God, a “fatal flaw” which brings all men under condemnation. “That is what Satan has done to us humans” (WCB, p. 49).
Now we have a man coming on the scene who claims to be God. John the Baptist calls Him “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”. Here we have the great Redeemer, the One, through whom rescue is certain for all who believe. What the Bible says, is that we now have a solution for our hopeless situation. The Apostle Paul made the importance of Jesus Christ for the sinner utmost in importance with the words: “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). In his book Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, R. C. Sproul explains in very simple yet comprehensive words, the importance and significance of this Man:
A key phrase in the Bible regarding the Atonement is the phrase, “in behalf of.” Jesus did not die for Himself, but for us. His suffering was vicarious; He was our substitute. He took our place in fulfilling the role of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World” (p.174).
In other words, mankind suffers from a fatal flaw. This flaw is spiritually terminal (in the sense that in eternity we cannot, and will not enjoy fellowship with God without a cure). Christ is the cure for all who believe. (To make a theological distinction, may I point out that to be more accurate, we are actually dead, not merely sick. In all actuality, we need more than a cure, we need new life).
This, my friend, is the Shocking Alternative.
_____________________________
¹What Christians Believe, p. 40
² Perhaps I should have clarified this earlier, but when we speak of the ‘
³ This is actually a good illustration of God’s decretive and perceptive will in one spot. In the case of the Ethiopian, this is a good example of God’s decretive will, in that God had from all eternity purposed the Word to be preached to him; for Philip, this was perceptive, in that this was a commandment revealed to him by God.
The Perfect Penitent.
“Only a bad person needs to repent:
only a good person can repent perfectly” (WCB, p.71).
Profound words for profound truth. God makes it perfectly clear to us that due to our sinful nature, resulting in our sinful-ness, we are under condemnation. To be more direct, in and of ourselves, we have no hope. But God does tell us: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). But let’s not forget… the fatal flaw. We are not “good” (Ps.
So now, what do we make of this? The Christian faith has us in a bit of a quandary of sorts. However, there is a solution. Mr. Lewis made the point quite clear in the following statement:
We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. (WCB, p. 67)
‘Jargon’ to most, and even worse, ‘jargon’ to many in the church today. In essence, what we are saying, is that Christ (who is God the Son), came to earth, and as an act of His love for us, lived a perfectly sinless life, and allowed Himself to be murdered (sacrificed) to satisfy the just demands of a holy God for the sins of mankind. This was done as a free gift, to be received by the elect chosen from the foundation of the world (Rev. 14:8). In our place, not by works or merit, but by grace. This is the beauty of the Gospel. We now have a perfect penitent, and by faith in Christ, He is our righteousness (2 Cor.
Lewis’ approach was admittedly transparent as he acknowledged the incomprehensibility of the deep truths of God on p. 62, where he states; “A good many theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work” (emphasis mine). In addition, he tells the reader that human writers can only do their best to “give you a description out of which you can make a mental picture … The pictures are there only to help you understand the formula” (WCB, pp. 64-65). We must remember that as finite creatures, we cannot comprehend the deepest truths of God that he gives us in His Word. Yes, He does give us information, but when He expresses the deep truths, He uses what John Calvin referred to as “baby-talk.” This is how an incomprehensible God condescends to our level, His children, using language we can understand. Remember, the finite cannot comprehend the infinite.
Yet God has endowed us with the ability to apprehend Him.
The Westminster Divines left us a good explanation of this beautiful doctrine in the Westminster Confession of faith:
Those whom God effectually calls He also freely justifies. He does not pour righteousness into them but pardons their sins and looks on them and accepts them as if they were righteous – not because of anything worked in them or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone. He does not consider their faith itself, the act of believing, as their righteousness or any other obedient response to the gospel on their part. Rather, He imputes to them the obedience and judicial satisfaction earned by Christ. For their part, they receive and rest on Christ and His righteousness by faith (and this faith is not their own but is itself a gift of God).¹
So here we have it. God’s solution for our fatal flaw.
______________________________________________________________________________
¹ The
The Practical Conclusion.
“Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority” (WCB, p. 87).
Now, to the conclusion of the matter. As Christians, we believe in the authority of God’s Word. Note the root word in “authority.” We often hear from pulpits that “John”, “Paul”, or “Moses” authored books under consideration. To be more accurate, God is the author - the Prophets and Apostles, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, were the writers. To profess that there is a God, and that this one God is the God of the Bible, the Author of the Bible, we must receive its contents as truth. And truth not in part, but truth in full. (Scholars refer to this as Plenary (full) Inspiration.) Ultimate truth is not up for popular opinion. We must have a rule, or standard, for which to declare authoritative, from whence to draw our conclusions.
“Unless I am convinced By Sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I will not recant. My conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe”. These immortal words were uttered by Martin Luther¹ at the Diet of Worms.² These words sound the battle cry for reformed Christians. We hold fast to the principle that Scripture, and Scripture alone is the only infallible³ rule for salvation, faith, and practice. Whereas the Roman Catholic church teaches two sources of infallible revelation (Scripture and tradition), we in the reformed camp recognize only one. We not only hold fast to the infallibility of Scripture,
we also hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. Whereas infallibility means that something cannot err, inerrancy means that it does not err. This is of extreme importance. Consider the words of John Calvin:
When that which professes to be the Word of God is acknowledged to be so, no person, unless devoid of common sense and the feelings of a man, will have the desperate hardihood to refuse credit to the speaker. But since no daily responses are given from heaven, and the Scriptures are the only records in which God has been pleased to consign His truth to perpetual remembrance, the full authority which they ought to possess with the faithful is not recognized, unless they are believed to have come from heaven, as directly as if God had been heard giving utterance to them. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.7.1)
Notice how Calvin weighs in so heavy on the divine authority of the Bible. In fact, it is the matter of authority which lays the bedrock for our faith. Reformed theology is committed to the authority of the Bible. We must view the Bible as our sole written authority for faith and practice.
Lewis uses examples to explain the process of making a practical conclusion:
I believe is such a place as
For the Christian, the source of all authority is God Himself. Through His Word, God has laid down for us the ultimate truth. Within its pages, we learn of the character and nature of God, the human predicament, and the means of redemption. His truths are not shrouded in mystery, on the contrary, we find all we need for faith and practice clearly revealed. Martin Luther taught what is known as ‘the perspicuity of Scripture’. This is to say that the bible is clear. It has a clarity which leaves all without excuse. Luther pointed out that even the least learned could understand enough to find its central message of redemption. The Westminster Confession puts it this way:
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (WCF, 1.7)
The Scriptures. The fountain of truth which leads us to the only practical conclusion; the truth about which Lewis says “we must take it or leave it” (p. 98). We needn’t be reminded here that man unaided by the Holy Spirit cannot understand, or rather, will not receive the truths of the Christian faith. God speaks to sinners through the Gospel (His promise), and reveals the nature of our relationship to Him. The Spirit applies this Word to our hearts and we receive. No one can believe apart from the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.
This, my friend, is ‘what Christians believe.’
I am thankful for the contribution C. S. Lewis has made for the
Lewis was not a Calvinist, though by God’s grace he is one now. He was instead a grown child who can lead us into the maturity of childhood. He was gifted by God to gift us in this way – he teaches us to be as children, that we might enter into the
______________________________________________________________________________
¹ R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown, Baker Books, p.41
² The Diet (a formal assembly meeting to discuss and/or act upon public or state affairs) of Worms was convened in 1521 in Worms, Germany in response to Luther’s writings challenging many Roman Catholic church doctrines, primarily the doctrine of faith alone, and the authority of Scripture.
³ ‘Infallible’ means incapable of mistake.