Mere Arminianism – Part Six (Lewis’ Liberty Over Election [Pt 1/2])

This continuing series is a look at C.S. Lewis’s views on Predestination and Free Will…

Lewis’ Liberty Over Election

Turning now to the famed Oxford and Cambridge scholar, what exactly were Lewis’ positions on these highly controversial topics of predestination and free will, Calvinism and Arminianism? While no professional theologian,[1] Lewis was most decidedly an Arminian, though he asserted he held to Anglican theology.[2]

In writing Mere Christianity, arguably his most theological work, it was Lewis’ goal to bring out the essentials of the Christian faith – essentials which spanned geographical and denominational boundaries, creating a kind of Christianity 101. Yet rather than keeping the hallway of his mere Christianity wide enough to include both Calvinistic and Arminian understandings of free will and predestination, the hallway seems to not be big enough for both perspectives. In Book 2: What Christians Believe, specifically Ch. 3: The Shocking Alternative, Lewis begins this chapter by recapping what Christians believe about Satan’s relationship to this world: that it is currently ruled by Satan. A critical question then arises: Is it God’s will for Satan to be in control currently, or not?[3]

Rather than pointing to sacred Scripture, Lewis then uses his favored tool of analogy to describe what he considers a spiritual reality – that something may be God’s will in one way but not another – in ordinary terms. It may be a mother’s will that her son to clean up his room. The child has the ability to obey, but he also has the freedom to disobey and violate his mother’s command. Lewis then asserts that this is God’s relationship with human beings – God gives commands that people are able to obey, but the human race freely violates God’s commands. Lewis the proceeds to explain that God created things that possessed free will, and that they currently have the ability to make correct or wrong decisions.

There are some issues with the picture painted by Lewis. First of all, it is true that God gives commands, and that his creation frequently disobeys. Judging as how Adam had not yet fallen when creation occurred, it is true “God created things which had free will.”[4] However the error lies in the ability of obedience since the Fall. Lewis not only supposes a free will, but that human beings can use an “incompatibilist freedom where one is truly free to choose good or bad, God’s will or sin.”[5] The proverbial child in the example has the full ability to obey his mother and clean his room. His ability is not hindered by his nature in any way. Contrast this with the ability of a sinner to make a choice to come to Christ. A slave cannot free himself by the use of his “free will.” A corpse cannot choose to resurrect itself from the dead. Yet these are the biblical descriptions previously discussed in dealing with the state of unrepentant humanity. If the child were chained to a tree outside, for example, he has no resources or ability to free himself and obey his mother. Additionally, the mother instructing her child to clean is not very sovereign in her ability to have her purposes accomplished, whereas God’s purposes are accomplished to his desired end.[6]

The very notion that creatures now can still go either right or wrong reflects at best a Semi-Pelagian view, if not a more Pelagian view of humanity, rather than an Augustinian view, with creatures possessing a moral neutrality. The fact that Lewis held a more or less Pelagian position should be no surprise, in light of his views on the doctrine of Total Depravity.

If [God] is not (in our sense) ‘good’ we shall obey, if at all, only through fear – and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity – when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing – may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.[7]

Lewis clearly had disdain for the notion of Total Depravity – at least what he thought the doctrine stated. In his discussion of Lewis’ stance on the topic in The Problem of Pain, John Alexander asserts, “According to Lewis, humanity knew its depravity because it never completely forgot the holiness of God.”[8] Alexander correctly summarizes Lewis’ own view, though also brings to light Lewis’ own misunderstanding concerning Total Depravity. By claiming humanity would, under Total Depravity, have absolutely no worth, Lewis confuses the doctrine of Total Depravity with what is considered Utter Depravity – that humanity has been corrupted by the Fall to the extent that we are as completely bad as we can be. Total Depravity, or more accurately Radical Depravity, states not that we are as bad as we can be, but rather every part of our being is affected negatively by the fall. Reformed theologian, Dr. R.C. Sproul, explains: “No vestigial ‘island of righteousness’ escapes the influence of the fall. Sin reaches into every aspect of our lives, finding no shelter or isolated virtue.”[9] Lewis’ understanding of Total Depravity seemed to be mistaken at best.

 

… to be continued…

---

[1] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, ix. “The questions which divide Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history, which out never to be treated except by real experts.”

[2] Ibid, x. Anglican theology, as defined by The Articles of Religion, are decidedly more Calvinistic than Lewis himself. See Articles X, “Of Free Will” and Article XVII, “Of Predestination and Election.” <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1571-39articles.html>.

[3] Ibid, 47.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Zach Dawes. C.S. Lewis: Calvinist or Classical Arminian? 8.

[6] Job 42:2; John 6:44; John 10:29

[7] C.S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain, 29.

[8] To Choose or Be Chosen, 11, in summarizing The Problem of Pain, 61.

[9] R.C. Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology? 118.