ReGrace
Page 3
2. Lewis believed in purgatory.
Springing out of his belief of praying for the dead was his belief in purgatorial cleansing. According to Roman Catholic dogma, purgatory is the final purification of the elect after death.14
In A Grief Observed, Lewis talked about his deceased wife, Joy, connecting her to suffering and cleansing in purgatory.
Lewis believed in salvation by grace, but he thought complete transformation was dependent upon one’s choice. Thus he felt that transformation can even occur after death, and some Christians need to be cleansed in order to be fit for heaven and enjoy it.
For Lewis, purgatory was designed to create complete sanctification, not retribution or punishment. So Lewis saw purgatory as a work of grace.
Here are some revealing quotes from Lewis:
To pray [for the dead] presupposes that progress and difficulty are still possible. In fact, you are bringing in something like Purgatory.
Well, I suppose that I am. Though even in Heaven some perpetual increase of beatitude, reached by a continually more ecstatic self-surrender, without the possibility of failure but not perhaps without its own ardours and exertions—for delight also has its severities and steep ascents, as lovers know—might be supposed. But I won’t press, or guess, that side for the moment. I believe in Purgatory.15
3. Lewis believed that it was possible for some unbelievers to find salvation after they have left this world.
While Lewis didn’t subscribe to universalism or ultimate reconciliation, he did believe that salvation after death was a possibility for some.
His view was that some people may seek and find Christ without knowing Him by name. However, he was very clear that this was not “salvation by sincerity” or “goodness” but rather a Spirit-driven desire for God.16
For Lewis, Christianity is not the only revelation of God’s way, but it is the complete and perfect revelation. Lewis, therefore, didn’t hold to the idea that all roads lead equally to God. In addition, Lewis believed that time may not work the same way after death as it does in life. Thus all those who lived before Christ and after might be subject to the grace of repentance.17
Interestingly, Lewis’s distant mentor, George MacDonald, believed in ultimate reconciliation (meaning, hell will be empty because God will win everyone to Himself in the end). Lewis’s regard for MacDonald was incomparable.
He said of MacDonald, “I dare not say that he is never in error; but to speak plainly I know hardly any other writer who seems to be closer, or more continually close, to the Spirit of Christ Himself.”18
That’s quite a statement to make about someone you don’t fully agree with doctrinally.
4. Lewis believed that it was acceptable for Christians to drink alcohol.
In contrast, many evangelicals today believe that all Christians should abstain from alcohol. Here’s a direct quote by Lewis on this point:
Temperance is, unfortunately, one of those words that has changed its meaning. It now usually means teetotalism. . . . It is a mistake to think that Christians ought to be teetotalers; Mohammedanism, not Christianity, is the teetotal religion.19
5. Lewis believed that the book of Job wasn’t historical and that the Bible contained errors.
This view will be shocking to some evangelicals, especially the conservative wing, since Lewis is widely regarded as an evangelical icon.
The Book of Job appears to me unhistorical because it begins about a man quite unconnected with all history or even legend, with no genealogy, living in a country of which the Bible elsewhere has hardly anything to say; because, in fact, the author quite obviously writes as a story-teller not as a chronicler.20
The human qualities of the raw materials [of the Bible] show through. Naïvety, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed. The total result is not “the Word of God” in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God.21
6. Lewis didn’t believe that all parts of the Bible were the Word of God.
In his Reflections on the Psalms, Lewis made these interesting comments:
Speaking of judgment and hatred in the Psalms. [Lewis calls them, “the vindictive Psalms, the cursings”; they are also known as “the imprecatory Psalms.”] Yet there must be some Christian use to be made of them; if, at least we [Christians] still believe (as I do) that all Holy Scripture is in some sense—though not all parts of it in the same sense—the word of God.22
7. Lewis believed that the creation account in Genesis may have been derived from pagan sources.
Here’s a quote:
I have therefore no difficulty in accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical.23
In closing, J. I. Packer—a man many consider to be a pillar of midcentury evangelicalism—sums up the shocking beliefs of C. S. Lewis this way:
By ordinary evangelical standards, his idea about the Atonement (archetypal penitence, rather than penal substitution), and his failure to ever mention justification by faith when speaking of the forgiveness of sins, and his apparent hospitality to baptismal regeneration, and his noninerrantist view of biblical inspiration, plus his quiet affirmation of purgatory and of the possible final salvation of some who have left this world as nonbelievers, were weaknesses; they led the late, great, Martyn Lloyd Jones, for whom evangelical orthodoxy was mandatory, to doubt whether Lewis was a Christian at all.24
Yet despite Lewis’s “shocking views” on various matters, Packer commends him:
The combination within him of insight with vitality, wisdom with wit, imaginative power with analytical precision made Lewis a sparkling communicator of the everlasting gospel. . . .
Long may we learn from the contents of his marvelous, magical mind! I doubt whether the full measure of him has been taken by anyone as yet.25
So if you happen to be a Lewis fan, I hope this chapter will encourage you to extend some extra grace to the next person with whom you disagree over doctrine.
Let’s now turn our attention to another great Christian who shaped church history.
7
The Shocking Beliefs of Jonathan Edwards
It takes God a long time to get us to stop thinking that unless everyone sees things exactly as we do, they must be wrong. That is never God’s view.
~ Oswald Chambers
Jonathan Edwards is a legend—a hero to many. Although the Yale-educated Calvinist theologian/philosopher lived in the eighteenth century, many who embrace Reformed theology give Edwards rock-star status.
The ubiquitous “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy” T-shirts and coffee mugs are glaring examples. (I’m sorry, but neither the publisher nor I will be selling those.)
Historians regard Edwards to be the theologian of the First Great Awakening (while George Whitefield was its promoter).1
The respected Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson dubbed Edwards “America’s Theologian.”2
The body of theological works Edwards produced in his day—without computers or voice-activation software—is stunning and formidable. More startling, Edwards completed a vast amount of work in a short period. He died at the young age of fifty-five from an experimental smallpox vaccination.
According to his daughter, Edwards spent thirteen hours a day in his study. And by his own admission, he once said of himself, “I am fitted for no other business but study.”3
Yet beyond Edwards’s uncanny mental abilities and introverted personality, a little-known fact is that he was a strong advocate for Native American rights.
He was bitterly critical when New Englanders had stolen land from Native Americans. It was his desire that they pay for the land they took.4
So Edwards—the logical Reformed personality—became a “social activist” engaged in “social justice.” This is interesting since many contemporary Edwards followers eschew social activism and soc
ial justice.
Even so, some American Christians venerate Edwards with almost cultlike regard. Thus any critique of his views is taken by some to be on a par with blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
So let me be clear: I, Frank Viola, believe that Jonathan Edwards was an incredible man whom God greatly used.
(If you’re a die-hard Edwards fan, reread that sentence please.)
Every Westerner who paid attention in history class knows Edwards from his infamous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”
What’s fascinating about this is that, according to the historical accounts, Edwards didn’t preach that sermon, he read it, as was his usual custom. And he wasn’t yelling when he did.5
In light of that introduction, the following views held by Edwards will be met with either shock or surprise by many Christians today.
1. Edwards believed that being a slave owner was not incompatible with being a follower of Jesus.
While Edwards was an advocate of Native American rights and denounced the transatlantic slave trade, he himself was a slave owner. Granted, Edwards believed that all humans were created equal by God and that slaves should be treated with respect.6
Many, if not most, of today’s evangelicals view slavery to be among the greatest evils in history. For “America’s greatest theologian” to own slaves is, well, shocking, even if he was simply acting in accordance with the times. Edwards was part of the aristocratic elite stratum of his society.
As one writer put it,
To expect Edwards to oppose slavery amidst the conflicts with the French and Native Americans would be akin to expecting soldiers to contribute to cancer research during a world war. It would be a good thing to do, but it probably wouldn’t rank among the most pressing concerns to the soldier. So it was with Edwards. Edwards the man was inescapably a man of his time—an aristocratic, revival focused, British patriot. Those were his blinders.7
This point sobers popular notions that Edwards always interpreted Scripture correctly, when in reality, he was influenced by the culture of his day in his understanding of Scripture. The fact that one of America’s greatest theologians owned slaves is a testament to the fact that no human—however great they may be—sees every angle of everything.
2. Edwards believed that the office of the papacy was the Antichrist.
Apologies to the Roman Catholic Church, but despite his impressive mental acumen, Edwards actually believed this. While a number of conservative evangelicals have been raised on this idea, most evangelical and mainstream Christians find it aberrant.
One writer states, “Edwards concluded that we can be certain that the Antichrist had embodied himself in the Roman Papacy.”8
3. Edwards believed that God hates sinners worse than you hate poison.
Edwards used intense imagery of eternally suffering in hell as a form of evangelism.
By contrast, many evangelical preachers today use more “polite” methods of evangelism, including appeals to become a Christian so one can reach their maximum potential.
Edwards’s description of painful eternal torment will be shocking to many modern Christians.
This is from his “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” sermon:
The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times so abominable in his eyes, as the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince: and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment: it is ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep; and there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God’s hand has held you up: there is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship: yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.9
Whether you agree with this piece of prose or not, the ideas—and the language—are a first-class shocker for most modern Christians.10
4. Edwards believed that the revivals happening in the 1740s were “the dawning” or “prelude” of the consummation of the ages where “the world would be renewed,” and that God’s great and last work on the earth began in America.
Here’s a direct quote:
It is not unlikely that this work of God’s Spirit, so extraordinary and wonderful, is the dawning, or, at least, a prelude of that glorious work of God, so often foretold in Scripture, which, in the progress and issue of it, shall renew the world of mankind. If we consider how long since the things foretold as what should precede this great event, have been accomplished; and how long this event has been expected by the church of God, and thought to be nigh by the most eminent men of God in the church; and withal consider what the state of things now is, and has for a considerable time been, in the church of God, and the world of mankind; we cannot reasonably think otherwise, than that the beginning of this great work of God must be near. And there are many things that make it probable that this work will begin in America.11
Christians in many countries have believed that the Lord has destined their country to be the place where God’s last and final work on the earth would begin and spread.
Edwards was a postmillennialist, thus he expected a golden age. This is in contrast with the myriad of Christians who are looking at the state of America and expecting the rapture at any moment due to the godless state of the world.
When looking at America since the days of Edwards—even up until today—a case can be made that his prediction of the “dawning” or “prelude” of the “glorious work of God as foretold by Scripture” in America was simply wrong.12
5. Edwards believed that emotional outbursts that included bodily manifestations were normative during a revival.
I remember when the Toronto Blessing hit North America in the mid-1990s. Many fundamentalists, evangelicals, and Reformed Christians came against it with switchblades and hand grenades, condemning the movement because of the emotional outbursts.
Interestingly, those who were leading the “blessing” pointed to the writings of Jonathan Edwards to justify that these manifestations were marks of real revival. And, well, whether you believe that the so-called Toronto Blessing was a work of God, a work of the devil, or the work of hand-waving magicians, they had a point.
Edwards may not have said grace over everything that occurred in the mid-1990s (some of it started to escalate into the bizarre). But one thing is clear. In 1734, people began responding to Edwards’s sermons with emotional outbursts and even the loss of bodily strength. They also testified to remarkable changes in their lives, just as those who “got the blessing” in the mid-1990s did.13
So the big point here is that Edwards saw emotional outbursts and other bodily phenomenon as a mark of revival. (He explained that this was a human response in some people to the power of the Spirit.)14
6. Edwards believed that mystical experiences were part of the Christian experience.
Some of you who are reading that statement may be having apoplexy right now. Let me define what I mean by “mystical.” That word has been used to either damn people or dignify them.
By “mystical,” I mean an experience that is spiritual and goes beyond the faculties of the frontal lobe. In describing the following entry by Edwards, the historian Henry Sheldon says that “he was transported by a species of ecstasy by contemplation of divine verities.”15
Edwards describes an experience he had with words like “view,” “appeared,” and “sense.”
But he wasn’t talking about seeing with the physical eye or sensing with the physical senses. He was rather talking about a spiritual “seeing” and a spiritual “sensing.”
On one occasion, the “vision”—or spiritual seeing—caused him to weep aloud for almost a full hour. Edwards pointed out that he had experiences like this numerous times. I’ve italicized the mystical terms in this quote of his below.
I had a view that for me was extraordinary, of the glory of the Son of God, as Mediator between God and man, and his wonderful, great, full, pure and sweet grace and love, and meek and gentle condescension. This grace that appeared so calm and sweet, appeared also great above the heavens. The person of Christ appeared ineffably excellent with an excellency great enough to swallow up all thought and conception—which continued, as near as I can judge, about an hour; which kept me the greater part of the time in a flood of tears, and weeping aloud. I felt an ardency of soul to be, what I know not otherwise how to express, emptied and annihilated; to lie in the dust, and to be full of Christ alone; to love him with a holy and pure love; to trust in him; to live upon him; to serve and follow him; and to be perfectly sanctified and made pure, with a divine and heavenly purity. I have, several other times, had views very much of the same nature, and which have had the same effects.16
Whether you like it or not, this is all mystical language. What makes this “shocking” is that I’ve never met an admirer of Edwards who described a personal spiritual experience like this, unless they were charismatic Calvinists.
But I’ve met many Edwards admirers who regarded such experiences—when described by others—as being the mark of a “Cereal Christian” (a flake, fruit, or nut).
7. Edwards believed that God’s sovereignty requires that He create the entire universe out of nothing at every moment.