Mere Christianity is the book that all new Christian seem to find themselves reading, and I was no exception. Although I agree with the consensual view that much of this book is terrific, I think Lewis's chapter The Perfect Penitent shows one of his main weaknesses (along with The Obstinate Toy Soldiers) in not being able to shake off that which used to apply to secularity but now, through an understanding of the Spirit, can be understood quite clearly. I think the weakest part of Mere Christianity (MC) is, for me, his treatment of God, and especially of Jesus. I get the feeling Lewis thought that the resurrection was one step too far for the readers to digest. CS Lewis is great, but someone who became a Christian through reading Mere Christianity, and who never moved on or grew up philosophically or theologically or even perhaps historically, would be in a dangerous position when faced even with proper intelligent scrutiny. For those obtuse, inane objections that you get from your detractors - MC will hold you in good stead - but the best ammunition you can have is the Bible verses.
One of Lewis's problems is that there is no attempt to place Jesus in his historical or theological context. (One of the 'Screwtape Letters' contains a scornful castigation of all such attempts, and lays CS Lewis wide open to the charge of overlooking or disregarding the historical context of the writings he is using). If one doesn’t put Jesus in His proper context, you will inevitably put Him in a different one, where He, and what He did for us, will be considerably diluted.
This is one of my issues with 'The Perfect Penitent'. Lewis is right to stress that Christians are not committed to one single way of understanding the meaning of the cross, and that as long as one somehow looks at the death of Jesus and understands it in terms of God's love and forgiveness, that is sufficient to start with. But his idea that (a) God requires humans to be penitent, that (b) we can't because of our pride, but that (c) Jesus does it in and for us, places in my view too high a value on repentance (vital though it is). If one is not careful it can imply that the doctrine of salvation through Christ is about God doing something in us rather than for us.
I remember him saying that only a bad person needs to repent and only a good person can repent perfectly. This is blatantly untrue. He also says "The worse you are the more you need it (which is not true of salvation - and I think that will lead some people thinking wrong thoughts) and the less you can do it (which is definitely not true - see Jeremiah 32, for example). He also says something like the perfect man is the only one who can repent perfectly. I think some of the time he confuses God's ability to resist sin with fallen man's necessity to repent of sin. In doing so he has diminished the true character of God. In that chapter Lewis has confused God's 'resistance' to sin with 'repentance' from sin.
Galatians 2:20,21 is, in my view, a good way to think of Christ's death, and its effect on us. Grace is the only way we should see Christ's death. If we start to smuggle legalism into the equation we dilute the perfect nature of God's love. In the preceding verse; St Paul is mindful of the fact that Christ came under the curse of the law at the cross (though he did not need to repent!) and that we, as Christians, have died with Him. If you look closely, Paul is anticipating the imminent argument in Galatians 3:19-25. It is true in one sense that the law can lead us to Christ, but we should not confuse that with grace above the law. We don't want to lose the value of Christ's death, because we would then lose the principle of grace that is at stake. Any attempt we make to live for God should be done because we have been united and crucified with Christ (see also Galatians 6:14). If we could receive anything by the law, then grace would not be necessary and Christ died for nothing (2:21). The only way any perception of Christ's death can be 'inadequate' is in this way.
Below is a brief discussion I had with a new Christian (Paul) on the issue of repentance.
Paul you say "Only a bad person needs to repent" - this is true, only by definition of anyone who has done something that falls short of Gods ideal being "bad", although they may not be "bad" in the colloquial sense of the word.
There seems to me to be some confusion here. You say it's true that only a bad person needs to repent, and then you go on to say anyone who has fallen short of God's ideal. Yet I'm almost sure that you must know this verse in Romans 3:22-24 -
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
It's not the case of 'anyone who has done something bad', it is that 'all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God' (see also Romans 5:19 and 1 Corinthians 15:22). I presume that both you and C.S Lewis understand this as well as I do, so I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Anyway I think Lewis is on dangerous ground saying things like "Only a bad person needs to repent" - even if he does not mean what he suggests, it is a statement that can so often be taken wrongly, and used to favour those who have no interest in God, but think that they'll be ok if He does exist due to their well-meaning lifestyles.
Next you say, people struggle here with Lewis's term” repent perfectly" i.e. - does that mean someone who is able to repent for everything they have done and no longer fall short of Gods ideal again? Or is it flawed in that a bad person can sincerely repent for everything they have done one day and yet still go and do it again through neglect, weakness or circumstance the next? If it’s the first instance then I cant say its false, if its the second I can...
It is neither of the above. Both contentions are unsound. In fact, Lewis's statement that "Only a good person can repent perfectly" is a non sequiter. In the first place, only a perfect person can repent perfectly, and the only perfect person who ever lived was Christ who did not need to repent. Lewis draws a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
"The worse you are the more you need it (which is not true of salvation-)" -
Paul says “Hadn’t thought of it that way but I think I know what you mean, do you mean its irrelevant how bad you are, if you are a murderer or a pick pocket you are equally in need of Gods grace and equally welcome in his eyes to be saved through Christ?
Yes I do mean that Paul, but there is also slightly more to it. What I'm now going to say also relates to your previous question too. Fundamentally, when Scripture talks of repentance it means returning to one's obedience, like a philandering wife coming back to her husband. It represents a central reorientation of our composite personalities. You will see in the Old Testament that Israel was constantly being told to turn from their ways unto the Lord, and therefore the covenant (or part of it) is God's promise to accept penitence. Try not to think too much of God forgiving the penitent man because of any restitution he makes. The very nature of God is one of forgiveness (Isaiah 43:25).
Some people wrongly presume that a man can come to know God if he tries hard enough to become righteous, but this is a glaring error. Being more righteous may certainly help a man to come closer to finding God, but the man's relationship with God depends upon penitence (Psalm 51:17). And after that, God creates, in us, a new creation (Jeremiah 31:31-34, 2 Corinthians 5:17). The prophecy in Jeremiah 31 is fulfilled in the gospels. Is this perhaps where you are not understanding it fully Paul? It is God's kindness that leads towards repentance (Romans 2:4) not the level of man's goodness or badness. And this is what C.S Lewis has missed in his chapter 'The Perfect Penitent'. Only by recognising the need for salvation will man truly repent. The Bible says that a veil is covering their hearts (2 Corinthians 3:15,16).
Why don’t you put Jeremiah 32 on your reading list Paul and really tried to think about it?
(next day)
You are right when you say ere are people in Judah who have very much turned away, who are completely unrepentant and on the face of it unable to repent (despite his efforts to teach and his warnings) but God promises (personally, in His own words) that He will take them away (to exile in Babylon where they will suffer) and let their city be destroyed so He can then bring them back (along with people He has banished from all the lands) when he will restore their land and fortunes through their hearts, and do joyfully by His unrelenting and love. >
We see that no difficulty is insuperable. With God's mighty strength and wisdom, all opposition, including that of insurmountability can be overcome. But there is perhaps something you may have overlooked - I'm not sure. Jeremiah didn't realise that judgment and mercy can co-exist with God, in fact, all is possible with God. Our God is boundless and merciful, with immutable justice. If, in His mercy, He spares some who then go on to repent, He does not need to attenuate His hatred for sin - but I think, to some extent we do. That is the fallibility of man. We cannot really hate a sin with the full fervency we once did if we are to attempt repentance. That is one way in which it can truly help us reconstitute our thoughts of sin - and at its best it brings about our ability to love someone whose sins we detest. C.S Lewis talks about this in his chapter called 'Forgiveness', and it is one of the best chapters in the book.
One of Lewis's problems is that there is no attempt to place Jesus in his historical or theological context. (One of the 'Screwtape Letters' contains a scornful castigation of all such attempts, and lays CS Lewis wide open to the charge of overlooking or disregarding the historical context of the writings he is using). If one doesn’t put Jesus in His proper context, you will inevitably put Him in a different one, where He, and what He did for us, will be considerably diluted.
This is one of my issues with 'The Perfect Penitent'. Lewis is right to stress that Christians are not committed to one single way of understanding the meaning of the cross, and that as long as one somehow looks at the death of Jesus and understands it in terms of God's love and forgiveness, that is sufficient to start with. But his idea that (a) God requires humans to be penitent, that (b) we can't because of our pride, but that (c) Jesus does it in and for us, places in my view too high a value on repentance (vital though it is). If one is not careful it can imply that the doctrine of salvation through Christ is about God doing something in us rather than for us.
I remember him saying that only a bad person needs to repent and only a good person can repent perfectly. This is blatantly untrue. He also says "The worse you are the more you need it (which is not true of salvation - and I think that will lead some people thinking wrong thoughts) and the less you can do it (which is definitely not true - see Jeremiah 32, for example). He also says something like the perfect man is the only one who can repent perfectly. I think some of the time he confuses God's ability to resist sin with fallen man's necessity to repent of sin. In doing so he has diminished the true character of God. In that chapter Lewis has confused God's 'resistance' to sin with 'repentance' from sin.
Galatians 2:20,21 is, in my view, a good way to think of Christ's death, and its effect on us. Grace is the only way we should see Christ's death. If we start to smuggle legalism into the equation we dilute the perfect nature of God's love. In the preceding verse; St Paul is mindful of the fact that Christ came under the curse of the law at the cross (though he did not need to repent!) and that we, as Christians, have died with Him. If you look closely, Paul is anticipating the imminent argument in Galatians 3:19-25. It is true in one sense that the law can lead us to Christ, but we should not confuse that with grace above the law. We don't want to lose the value of Christ's death, because we would then lose the principle of grace that is at stake. Any attempt we make to live for God should be done because we have been united and crucified with Christ (see also Galatians 6:14). If we could receive anything by the law, then grace would not be necessary and Christ died for nothing (2:21). The only way any perception of Christ's death can be 'inadequate' is in this way.
Below is a brief discussion I had with a new Christian (Paul) on the issue of repentance.
Paul you say "Only a bad person needs to repent" - this is true, only by definition of anyone who has done something that falls short of Gods ideal being "bad", although they may not be "bad" in the colloquial sense of the word.
There seems to me to be some confusion here. You say it's true that only a bad person needs to repent, and then you go on to say anyone who has fallen short of God's ideal. Yet I'm almost sure that you must know this verse in Romans 3:22-24 -
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
It's not the case of 'anyone who has done something bad', it is that 'all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God' (see also Romans 5:19 and 1 Corinthians 15:22). I presume that both you and C.S Lewis understand this as well as I do, so I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Anyway I think Lewis is on dangerous ground saying things like "Only a bad person needs to repent" - even if he does not mean what he suggests, it is a statement that can so often be taken wrongly, and used to favour those who have no interest in God, but think that they'll be ok if He does exist due to their well-meaning lifestyles.
Next you say, people struggle here with Lewis's term” repent perfectly" i.e. - does that mean someone who is able to repent for everything they have done and no longer fall short of Gods ideal again? Or is it flawed in that a bad person can sincerely repent for everything they have done one day and yet still go and do it again through neglect, weakness or circumstance the next? If it’s the first instance then I cant say its false, if its the second I can...
It is neither of the above. Both contentions are unsound. In fact, Lewis's statement that "Only a good person can repent perfectly" is a non sequiter. In the first place, only a perfect person can repent perfectly, and the only perfect person who ever lived was Christ who did not need to repent. Lewis draws a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
"The worse you are the more you need it (which is not true of salvation-)" -
Paul says “Hadn’t thought of it that way but I think I know what you mean, do you mean its irrelevant how bad you are, if you are a murderer or a pick pocket you are equally in need of Gods grace and equally welcome in his eyes to be saved through Christ?
Yes I do mean that Paul, but there is also slightly more to it. What I'm now going to say also relates to your previous question too. Fundamentally, when Scripture talks of repentance it means returning to one's obedience, like a philandering wife coming back to her husband. It represents a central reorientation of our composite personalities. You will see in the Old Testament that Israel was constantly being told to turn from their ways unto the Lord, and therefore the covenant (or part of it) is God's promise to accept penitence. Try not to think too much of God forgiving the penitent man because of any restitution he makes. The very nature of God is one of forgiveness (Isaiah 43:25).
Some people wrongly presume that a man can come to know God if he tries hard enough to become righteous, but this is a glaring error. Being more righteous may certainly help a man to come closer to finding God, but the man's relationship with God depends upon penitence (Psalm 51:17). And after that, God creates, in us, a new creation (Jeremiah 31:31-34, 2 Corinthians 5:17). The prophecy in Jeremiah 31 is fulfilled in the gospels. Is this perhaps where you are not understanding it fully Paul? It is God's kindness that leads towards repentance (Romans 2:4) not the level of man's goodness or badness. And this is what C.S Lewis has missed in his chapter 'The Perfect Penitent'. Only by recognising the need for salvation will man truly repent. The Bible says that a veil is covering their hearts (2 Corinthians 3:15,16).
Why don’t you put Jeremiah 32 on your reading list Paul and really tried to think about it?
(next day)
You are right when you say ere are people in Judah who have very much turned away, who are completely unrepentant and on the face of it unable to repent (despite his efforts to teach and his warnings) but God promises (personally, in His own words) that He will take them away (to exile in Babylon where they will suffer) and let their city be destroyed so He can then bring them back (along with people He has banished from all the lands) when he will restore their land and fortunes through their hearts, and do joyfully by His unrelenting and love. >
We see that no difficulty is insuperable. With God's mighty strength and wisdom, all opposition, including that of insurmountability can be overcome. But there is perhaps something you may have overlooked - I'm not sure. Jeremiah didn't realise that judgment and mercy can co-exist with God, in fact, all is possible with God. Our God is boundless and merciful, with immutable justice. If, in His mercy, He spares some who then go on to repent, He does not need to attenuate His hatred for sin - but I think, to some extent we do. That is the fallibility of man. We cannot really hate a sin with the full fervency we once did if we are to attempt repentance. That is one way in which it can truly help us reconstitute our thoughts of sin - and at its best it brings about our ability to love someone whose sins we detest. C.S Lewis talks about this in his chapter called 'Forgiveness', and it is one of the best chapters in the book.
