Just an Allegory.
| Posted On: 05/15/08 09:58:32 AM |
Age 18, MN |
It should be kept in mind that this is an allegory. Allegories break down when you take them too far, that is why they are only allegories and not the Bible.
For example look at The Magicians Nephew when Aslan "sings" Narnia into being. Yet in the Bible God "spoke" and the Earth into being. Heretical? Or literary creativity?
Another example is when Aslan dies in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Jesus died for all and yet Aslan only died for Edmund. Again, just an allegory.
This is a fantasy not a work of theology and I think it would be good to remember that and not rely on C.S.Lewis's novels for our doctrine and not to rely on movie industry for solid evangelical tools.
Peace,
Elise
Click here to reply to this post
|
Lewis pretty spot-on
| Posted On: 05/14/08 07:58:24 AM |
Age 28, SOUTH AFRICA |
I think Lewis was pretty spot on with this, as (with all the characters in Narnia) Aslan is incredibly personal with Emeth. In other words, he wasn't saying something true of ALL those who served Tash, only Emeth. God is a lot more just and loving than us-- he doesn't throw a blanket rule over everyone, rather he treats all individually while treating them impartially. I won't be surprised if I find Buddhists and Muslims who were taught incorrectly about Christ/never heard of Christ etc. in the New Heavens and New Earth one day. I guess that's why I'm not Calvinist :) As for Lewis' Universalism-- I'd love to know where it is 'documented.' The closest Lewis comes is a 'hope' (illustrated through many of his writings and The Great Divorce) while affirming an eternal hell in books like Mere Christianity. He probably got this hope from one of his heroes - George MacDonald - who was a Biblical Universalist (one must be careful about the phrase 'universalism' as most Christians who believe all will eventually be saved do believe in a hell, they just believe all will be restored after a chastising age.) Any God-loving and God-fearing person ought to question the notion of hell and find out what Scripture TRULY says. I'm not saying that it does say a restorative universalism outright, but there are hints at it. Especially when you look at the actual word usage ("forever" is Aieon in Greek, which means 'age' or 'age upon age.' 'Age' has an end.) The bottom line is the Bible doesn't really tell us enough about hell to really know for sure, and it certainly doesn't make what you believe about hell as a prerequisite for your entrance into heaven.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Narnia chronicles are not christian
| Posted On: 05/14/08 03:21:56 AM |
Age 56, AUSTRALIA |
An excelent article which points out many of the very pagan references in The L,W&W is on a webste www.lasttrumpet.org . Lewis Carrol admitted his Narnia series are NOT allegories and should be read as such. They are fantasy with a strong pagan emphasis as were much of his writings. If people wish to draw paralells from the Narnia books they are welcome to do so but I suggest that they keep them to themselves. I will not support thes books or films as it takes only a little cyanide in the softdrink for it to be harmful. The lie in the garden was mixed with alittle truth.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Thanks for the Heads-up (not a CS Lewis reader)
| Posted On: 05/13/08 09:11:54 PM |
Age 51, VA |
Thanks for the education on Lewis. I am not a sci-fi fan and the Narnia books never attracted me. I am not a Lewis reader in general, so I really appreciate the heads up and will pass on the info to others before deciding to see the movies.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Something to consider.
| Posted On: 05/23/08 07:48:53 AM | | Age 24, FL |
You basically say that you are not a sci-fi fan, have never been attracted to the Narnia books (and I assume, therefore, that you have never read them), and that you are not a big Lewis reader in general. From personal experience, it would be wiser to go out of your way to read the actual text(s) and author in question so as to get a first-hand view of the issue. It is so easy to take things out of context, or to misunderstand an author based on only one of his or her works. In other words, know the book, know the series, know the context, and know the author's views personally. Never just take another person's word for it. Am I saying the author of the article above is wrong? No, not necessarily. I am, however, going to actually take the time to look into the issue myself rather than just assuming that the author of the article has understood everything correctly. If we love the truth as Christians, then it is in our best interest to try to research things ourselves, that way we avoid spreading falsehoods or misinterpretations accidentally.
Click here to reply to this post
That's not universalism
| Posted On: 05/13/08 07:03:11 PM |
Age 45, GA |
I believe Lewis was wrong to include the story of Emeth, but to call it universalism greatly and unfairly exaggerates his error. Universalism is the belief that all people are eventually saved. Lewis didn't believe that. In The Last Battle, plenty of creatures didn't get into the new Narnia (symbolic of heaven). Some characters were forever imprisoned in darkness and others died a well-deserved, brutal, permanent death. Emeth was a single character who made it through, and I think Lewis was making a statement about those who seek God faithfully without ever learning who he is. I don't agree with that belief--that someone can be saved without knowing who Jesus is--and I wish Lewis didn't put that part in there. But don't use it as an example of universalism, because it isn't.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Thank you.
| Posted On: 05/20/08 09:50:01 AM | | Age 20, MN |
You said what I was going to say in regards to universalism and C.S. Lewis. :) Two things to add. One: For those who forgot or haven't read the book, Lewis makes it extremely clear that Tash and Aslan are NOT the same at all. But I do share in the concern about Hollywood. If you read it in context, you get what GA 45 got. If you leave out some key parts, which the directors could easily do, then it becomes universalism. Have a great day and God Bless!
Click here to reply to this post
Misrepresentation, but I agree...
| Posted On: 05/13/08 02:55:11 PM |
Age 43, IL |
First off, I think you make a few crucial errors in your article, Russ.
1)What Lewis represents in Emeth's encounter with Aslan is not Universalism in the "purest" sense (mere universalism?). Nothing in the book suggests that ALL of Tash's followers were saved, which leads to
2)Your article would suggest to the uninformed reader that Emeth lived an evil, destructive, and hateful life. I don't doubt that this episode reflects Lewis's position with regard to "faithful unbelievers," and on that issue I think he is probably wrong, but it is miles away from saying "anything goes."
Related to this is your statement about Lewis's "documented theology of universalism." Documented where? I'm not saying it's not; I'd just like to see the documentation (and I'm assuming you're not merely referring to "The Last Battle."
Having said all that, I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head re the likelihood of Hollywood's take on this scene. Might hinge on how much creative control Lewis's estate retains in the production, but odds are, you are right, and by presenting these movies as evangelistic Christian allegories (a claim Lewis never made about the stories, as already pointed out by some on this board), the church may find itself painted into a corner trying to explain this away.
Click here to reply to this post
|
A shallow interpretation brilliantly corrected by Lou - Age 64, Ohio
| Posted On: 05/13/08 02:18:21 PM |
Age 38, IN |
This article shows a clear misunderstanding of both C.S. Lewis, who was not a universalist, and The Chronicles of Narnia, which does not teach universalism. Context is everything. Study your literature.
p.s. Very well put, Lou. Kudos!
Click here to reply to this post
|
How does salvation happen?
| Posted On: 05/13/08 01:36:10 PM |
Age 37, OH |
"Even if there are any [converts], it is only because of the exceeding grace of Christ and has nothing to do with any evangelical quality of the film or story."
So you're saying that the salvation of souls is dependent upon the "evangelical quality" of the evangelistic sales pitch?
The "exceeding grace of Christ" is not an anomoly in salvation, it is the sole ingredient. God does not depend on us for the salvation of His elect. He uses whatever method He desires according to His pleasure to regenerate the lost.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Discernment
| Posted On: 05/13/08 12:26:25 PM |
Age 63, MO |
Lewis was not an orthodox theologian. Many believers do not understand this. Not only was there his near universalism but also his lack of belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. Churches need to prepare their congregations for this when the universalistic aspect comes out in the final episode.
On the other hand, the death and resurrection in the first episode reinforces the hope of a believer. It is just extraordinary.
So I guess we need to teach our fellow believers to be discerning . . . a quality they need to have anyway to lead a godly life.
Click here to reply to this post
|
More about Emeth
| Posted On: 05/13/08 11:03:16 AM |
Age 32, MN |
You have brought up the biggest problem I have with the Chronicles of Narnia books. The story of the boy drives me to just about pull my hair out. I can't stand it. Yes, in a sense, it is universalism. However, I agree with the other posters above: Lou, Jim, and others. Aslan was not accepting *all* of Emeth's actions, he accepted all the *good* actions. Anything that is "good" comes from God. Nothing that is not good can come from Him. It's very simple. That said, do we do anything good on our own? No, the Bible says "There is none good. No, not one." If it were somehow possible that Emeth had NEVER sinned, and if we can assume that there is not original sin in the world of Narnia, then perhaps we could understand why this boy was permitted into Aslan's country. There is one point that we all need to remember, the thing that my husband always tells me when I bring up this story, "It's not the Bible." C.S. Lewis even said that it is not an allegory (such as "Pilgrim's Progress" is). In that light, I think that the article by Russ is a great reminder to us, a good warning of how this might play out in the end. I think the whole book would have been much better if the story of Emeth had been left out all together. Can someone explain why it even needs to be in there? C.S. Lewis should have been asked about it at the time it was written--was he? Thanks, Steph
Click here to reply to this post
|
Read More Feedback
|
|
|
