The Evangelical Universalist Forum

EO view C.S. Lewis as a modern advocate of apocatastasis!

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#1

"]

[size=120]Modern Advocates[/size]

Known proponents of a qualified doctrine of apocatastasis within the Orthodox Church include:
]Nikolai Berdyaev/]
]Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov/]
]Pavel Evdokimov/]
]St Sophrony (Sakharov)/]
]Archimandrite Lazarus (Moore)/]
]Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia/]
Some prominent twentieth century non-Orthodox theologians who advocated this include:
]Hans Urs von Balthasar/]
]Richard John Neuhaus - Fr. Neuhaus follows von Balthasar’s position which rejects any explicit doctrine that damnation is not a possibility. For his explanation, see FT0108./]
]F. W. Farrar/]
]C. S. Lewis - at least, this claim is asserted in a dissertation entitled “All Will Be Well”/] :astonished: :confused:

#2

Crap. I lost the essay I had been writing on this… :angry:

In conclusion: um, no. The paper has almost nothing to do with apokatastasis per se; the author’s concept of universalism is shaky and ill-defined (more along the line of the so-called Unitarian Universalists); and his analysis of Lewis, while often competent, features some very serious flaws–sometimes even blatantly obvious flaws right there on the page. (It is hard to figure out the thought process of someone who regards Till We Have Faces as Lewis’ ultimate expression of “universalism”, while also shortly afterward quoting a line from a character clearly intended to be God or a legitimate angel at the thematic climax of the story: “Die before you die. There is no chance afterward.” I could understand that as his ultimate expression against universalism, but obviously the author of the dissertation doesn’t mean that.)

A curious read, certainly, but I cannot imagine any trained Eastern Orthodox proponent thinking Lewis was an advocate of a qualified version of universal restoration based on the kind of arguments in this paper. I love Lewis dearly as my own Teacher (as Lewis regarded MacD as his own Teacher posthumously), and I of all people would promote him as a Christian universalist if I possibly could. But honesty and logic and the facts do not allow me to do so. He believed all men can be saved (up to a point!), but not that all men shall be saved. Can does not equal shall. (And neither by all valid assessment of the evidence could I say he even hoped for it to happen after all. The null-dodge he allowed for MacDonald in The Great Divorce is not a serious persistent hope for all men, as even the author of this paper acknowledges. Which doesn’t stop the author from figuring this means MacD was secretly in his most distant heart held a faint hope for universalism after all, which Lewis had detected and so followed suit on. This also indicates how much or how competently the author bothered to study MacD for comparatively validating Lewis’ representation of him and his beliefs in TGD. :unamused: )

#3

Jason

Damn, I would have loved to have read that essay. Any chance you might resurrect it? :slight_smile:

Your points about the inconsistency of the paper Alex cites are well made. I have only skimmed bits of it myself, but the author is undoubtedly way off beam about Lewis’s beliefs in places. As someone who has read Lewis as widely as you have - and has such a high regard for him (as do I), wouldn’t you agree that he made his belief in an eternal hell *quite *clear? In The Problem of Pain, for example, he includes a whole chapter on hell, and while it is incoherently Arminian in its tenor, it is unequivocal.

Having read and enjoyed *The Great Divorce *a great deal, I must confess, though, that I am perplexed as to why Lewis did *not *embrace apokatastasis, when he seemed to believe in purgatory. With TGD in mind in particular, would you be kind enough to give me your opinion as to what Lewis actually *did *believe about purgatory, and why he didn’t follow his master into a belief in Universalism?

Shalom

Johnny

#4

Agreed.

In The Last Battle, Ginger the cat was annihilated, an unbeliever was saved, the Dwarves were shown to be beyond redemption, and the host of Aslan’s enemies went into his shadow (Lewis didn’t know what happened to them.)

Not a hint of apokatastasis here.

#5

Unfortunately not, which is why I was surprised & confused as to why it was listed as such on the Orthodox Wiki - I wonder why the author thought or wanted C.S. Lewis to believe in apokatastasis…

#6

Johnny,

Yes he made his non-universalism routinely clear from the beginning of his Christian writing to the end (Letters to Malcolm, and Till We Have Faces–although ironically, since TWHF is the one novel of Lewis I haven’t read, I didn’t know this until I read the quote from the dissertation author!)

Last spring I wrote an extended commentary on how close Lewis got to Universalism, with special mention of TGD and TPoP, including an indepth analysis of Lewis’ strangely self-contradictory stance he took in the latter.

How close did Lewis get to universalism? This close!

The short answer that Lewis himself gave about why he wasn’t a universalist (despite acknowledging that St. Paul’s statements seem to warrant it!), was because he thought Jesus testified against it. Since MacD doesn’t ever really go into a detailed exegesis, he was of no help to Lewis on this. As widely read as Lewis was, I have to think he never got around to reading any of the English (or German) exegetical universalists like Winchester, or he would have expressed more clear opposition to those kinds of arguments (or accepted them perhaps!) He does cite William Law on occasion, so we know he read him and was impressed enough to quote or reference him every once in a while, but never in any capacity that indicated Law was a Christian universalist (although he certainly was). I am almost completely unfamiliar with Law’s work, so I don’t know how much he exegeted Christ’s testimony in the Gospels. I hope if Robin/Gregory edits a sequel to All Shall Be Well, that he will find someone to report on William Law.

#7

Hi Jason

Thanks for your reply. As always, you focus in on the pertinent issues with laser beam accuracy. :smiley:

You’re absolutely right about the good George and his ‘lack’ of systematic Biblical exegesis. As I’m sure you know, George disapproved of the practice of quoting scripture chapter and verse, preferring to let scripture infuse his writings organically, as it were. But I hadn’t thought of that as being one of the reasons Jack Lewis ‘rejected’, if you like, George’s Universalism.

Because, of course, you again hit the nail on the head that Lewis was *very *big on sticking like glue to what he called the “Dominical utterances”, ie the sayings of Jesus. And to my way of thinking at least, Jesus was not a Universalist - at least, not overtly so. (That’s a whole other thread there! Is there one going somewhere on this board on that theme - ie Christ’s Universalism?)

And I’m amazed to learn that Lewis, who was so incredibly well read, hadn’t really read much on the subject of Universalism. Oh well, I guess he only had the same number of hours in his day as the rest of us mortals.

By the way, although I have read pretty much all of Lewis’s apologetic works, I haven’t read *Till We Have Faces *either. Actually, mea culpa, I haven’t even read his sci-fi novels. Note to self: read them!

Shalom

Johnny

#8

I don’t think I understand apokatastasis. I have a much clearer idea of katallagā.

#9

Till We Have Faces and the Space Trilogy are my favorite works of Lewis’, and arguably his most satisfying. They’re simply packed with theological implications and inferences, too, and communicate them much more effectively, in my humble opinion, than even his more straightforward theology (at least for me :smiley:).

And yes, I noticed that Lewis was not convinced because of a lack of straight exegesis on MacDonald’s part, because of what Jesus had said. This is made fairly clear in his introduction to the anthology he made on MacDonald.