In this final post on Book II, I want to address two somewhat controversial issues: how to properly understand “free will” and Lewis’ implicit argument for universalism. The first, free will, Lewis addresses in chapter 3, and chapter 5 deals with the later.
First, the issue of free will is a long debated argument in the church. One of the greatest dialogues I have ever read was between two theologians by the name of Martin Luther and Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus’ first attack against Luther’s argument was entitled On Free Will, and Luther responded with his book entitled The Bondage of the Will. While I will not go in depth about the substance of these books here, I encourage you to read them. It is a great opportunity to see a debate that lasts even today.
Where does Lewis stand in this debate? I think his writing gives us a hint.
If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them [Adam and Eve] free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata – of creatures that worked like machines – would hardly be worth creating” (53)
Lewis sees the human will as free; man has the ability to choose right or wrong. The alternative is “automata”, a mechanic, pre-programed way of thinking and acting.
It is at this point that I differ with Lewis or at least the way he is portraying man’s will in this chapter. I believe Lewis is presenting a false dichotomy. He is presenting something as one way or the other, while, in reality, it is not so cut and dry, black and white. Rather than looking at it as completely free to choose right or wrong or completely controlled by God, I, along with many others, would say that man is free but only in the sense that he can make choices. However, those choices do not come from clear thinking or rationale judgement. I prefer to say that man has an “imprisoned” will, a will that desires goodness but can only see only as far as him/herself. In other words, man is not absolutely free to act out of pure goodness. Does that mean that man can never do good things, like give to the poor and needy, help a brother or sister, care for the afflicted, start and contribute to charities, etc.? No, of course not.
As we have said before, man knows the “ought” of actions, but he finds great difficulty acting upon them. Due to our inherent nature, our will is tainted with selfishness. A perfectly good will always looks outward, always looking for opportunities to sacrifice one’s self for another. In Whom is this fully and totally exemplified?
Secondly, many have argued that Lewis endorses universalism, the idea that one does not have to know and profess Christ in order to go to heaven. Lewis, when speaking about what puzzled him as an unbeliever, says,
It is not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.”
Lewis uses this reasoning to call unbelievers to stop thinking about being on the outside and move into the family of Christ. “Every addition to that body enables Him to do more.” It seems like Lewis is more concerned with calling unbelievers than answering an important and often criticized aspect of Christianity. “Cutting of a man’s fingers would be an odd way of getting him to do more work” (65).
Since many find this a challenging part of Christianity, I would like to spend a few most addressing the question: “Do I have to accept Christ in order to go to heaven?” First, every religion that worships a god and not necessarily God will state that creation testifies to a Creator. It is His workmanship that we see everything before us. Of course many, particularly in today’s scientific, reductionistic culture, will say that creation is a process with no divine creator, but we left that discussion long ago in the book. Therefore, creation itself testifies that there is God, and we are without excuse.
What about the Christian teaching that one MUST hear the Gospel, the good news of Christ’s redeeming work, in order to be saved? This is not an easy question to answer, and one that must be given much thought. Whether you interpret the word “world” in John 3:16 as a specific group of people or a general term referring to a much larger group, it is clear from the teachings of Scripture that God adamantly and patiently pursues His children with an enduring love, even as our desire is to flee from His presence.
Secondly, we are God’s hands and feet in the world, and He has called us to a great work, one which we must treat with great care and responsibility. He places us in various positions, for He has a plan for each. But do not assume that plan is thwarted in any way by you. To assume such a thing is egotistical!
Lastly, and truthfully, I cannot answer the ultimate question about the indigenous tribe in Africa, isolated from all forms of media and almost impermeable from the outside. All I can do is uphold the sovereignty of God and know that His ways are not mine for God is infinite and creator of all things, and I am merely the works of His hand. The Bible tells us that faith comes through hearing. How the Spirit accomplishes such a work is far beyond anything I can imagine, and for that, I am truly thankful. Man’s salvation is not my responsibility; that is a work of the Lord along. I fully believe that Christ is the only way one shall see the face of God in heaven, but He has simply called me to proclaim the good news that Christ has risen to save sinners!
In the next section, Book III, we will spend a bulk of our time in this study. Lewis looks at “Christian Behaviour” from a variety of view points. Join us as we look more closely at the Christian life.