Hebrews Lesson 52
May 4, 2006
NKJ Acts 4:12 "Nor is
there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given
among men by which we must be saved."
We
are in a section of Hebrews. We are going to run through this briefly to get
all of our thinking back where we ended last time. As I pointed out when
we began last time, I really needed 3 solid uninterrupted hours to communicate
what I wanted to communicate. We get things broken up and everybody goes
about their business for another week then you come back and we have to get
everybody thinking these deep heavy thoughts.
The
writer of Hebrews is castigating his audience here because they have regressed
spiritually. As part of spiritual regression there is the loss of the ability
to think biblically. There is the loss of the ability to think precisely
and accurately about anything in your life. This has to do with
relationships. It has to do with work. It has to do with
thought. It has to do with the deeper elements of thought. We get
clouded because what happens is that our thinking becomes affected by
sin.
Peter
talks about the fact that it is the fleshly lusts that war against the
soul. So it is easy for us to think at one level about the fact that when
you get involved in extended carnality that obviously, living a sinful life has
an impact on our ability to think biblically and it retards any spiritual
growth. We begin to regress back into childhood. That’s what happens
here. It not only relates to the content of our thinking in terms of
thinking wrong kinds of thought where our thinking is dominated by mental
attitude sins of envy, anger, bitterness, resentment or whether our thinking is
affected by various lust patterns in terms of materialism lust, sexual lust,
chemical lust, or any of the other lust patterns. What we recognize is
that all of this occurs within a larger framework. That larger framework
is how we think. I have used the illustration of building a house. When
the Holy Spirit comes in and is renovating (Romans 12:2 where we have the
principle of not being conformed to the world but transforming our thinking)
the Holy Spirit is not only changing what we think about in terms of content;
but He is also going to change how we think. We no longer think as the world
thinks within a limited frame of reference rationalism or empiricism.
All
of this kind of comes together because we have had questions in the last month
or so asking if there is a place to think about or utilize vocabulary related
to mysticism in the Christian life and how does thinking or the forms of
thinking affect us, because they do. I have used the illustration of being
transformed from the cultural norms and patterns and habits that we have here
in the United States and suddenly you are transformed and you end up in some
rural province of China and you are never going to see another American for the
rest of your life and you are never going to talk English for the rest of your
life that is to anybody that understands you. So you have to overhaul
everything in your thinking in order to live in the new culture. That is
not nearly as radical as the change that takes place when you are moved from
being spiritually dead to being spiritually alive from being child of devil to
a child of God in the royal family of God. Yet it is this kind of thing
that is so rarely taught or talked about in most churches because it is rare to
find people who want to have a view of the Christian life or be challenged to
move beyond a first grade level of understanding or education in what the
spiritual life is all about. So the writer of Hebrews is challenging his
readers because they have fallen back.
NKJ Hebrews 5:13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled
in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.
That
means if you are just taking in kindergarten level or first grade level
doctrine, then you will not have the skills necessary to advance to spiritual
maturity. He uses the word apeiros for the word skilled, which means someone who is ignorant
of true doctrine, not consistently putting it into practice.
Then
he goes on to say…
NKJ Hebrews 5:14 But
solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have
their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
That
is practice. This is the Greek word hexis meaning someone who is skilled
or has proficiency, someone who repeatedly and successfully practices the
spiritual skills. As part of the first basic spiritual skills we come to
doctrinal orientation. Doctrinal orientation means that we are orienting our
thinking to the Word of God and no loner orienting our thinking to the human
viewpoint modus operandi of the culture around us. It takes
practice. It takes time to think about how we think.
Solid
doctrine belongs to the mature, to those who by consistent practice and use
have their senses exercised to discern.
I
am going to skip to the word diakrisis meaning the ability
to distinguish or evaluate. What we are talking about here is spiritual
critical thinking skills. How do you learn to think critically about
anything in life? You think about whatever the field is that you are
in. If you went to college and studied history, English, education you
know that in your field there are different viewpoints. Only by reading
and studying do you learn to identify the different viewpoints that are there
and understand that this viewpoint has weaknesses over against this other
viewpoint. Something that is common to all of us is the arena of politics and
the arena of political theory - what you think about how the country should be
run. You know that there are two basic views of looking at government and
politics. You have the conservative view and liberal view. Those grow
out of an entire worldview of how a person looks at everything in life starting
from God and working all the way down to man. Most people don’t press it that
far. They think because they are Americans, they think more
pragmatically. What works? Pragmatics as an American is one of the
human viewpoint norms and standards that you have in your soul. This is
typical of most Americans.
“Don’t
give me all that theory. Just tell me what to do.”
What
you do always flows out of a theory whether you know it or not. If you are
not aware of what the “theory” is that underlies it; then all you are doing is
practicing a theory called pragmatics - whatever works is okay. That flows
out and is consistent with moral relativism view of absolutes. We have to
think about our fundamental concepts of thought. We have to learn to do this
and it only comes by practice, by illustration and by example.
A
basic principle in any education theory is that sometimes we learn by
contrast. This is one thing. It’s not this. It’s not that. You
can understand various shades of the color red by comparing them and
contrasting them to green or to blue or something else. You learn to hone
in on what one thing is in contrast to things that are close to it. So we
compare and contrast in order to get a more focused view of what the Scripture
is teaching.
As
I went through this last time I have been teaching about the fact that as we
get into the spiritual life we have this problem with how we think. Nobody
wants to talk about it. On the one hand there is pressure from the
antinomian trend of the sin nature to give up any absolutes or rigorous logic
and thinking. That is called mysticism. We just have this intuitive
label insight into what is right and what is wrong and what God wants us to do. We
label it the Holy Spirit. That is what happens in Christianity. It is
really mysticism because this intuitive thing operates in a way that is
completely independent from Scripture. We talked about that. Then we
came back and talked about the other side. It is the trend of the sin
nature to give up any kind of logic. That is called mysticism. And we
label it the Holy Spirit. That’s what happens in Christianity. It is
really mysticism. In a way that is completely independent from Scripture.
Then
we came back and talked about the other side. We have pressure from as the
sin nature trends toward legalism. It has a related view of knowledge that
ends up either in autonomous rationalism or empiricism. All of this affects how
we think about witnessing to people in the arena of apologetics. Where a lot of
this is hard to think through, it has a very practical application in three
areas.
First
of all it helps us think more precisely about how we are going to communicate
the truth of Christianity to unbelievers. There are a lot of unbelievers
that you are going to witness to that may not raise objections. They may
have never thought very deeply or profoundly about some things or maybe there
has been some pre-evangelism that has taken place where some of these questions
have already answered for them. You step in and give them the gospel and
they are ready to accept the gospel right then and there. But other times
you may be talking to somebody and all they have heard is a lot of the
objections to Christianity and you get involved in trying to help them
understand that Christianity is not putting your brain in neutral and
irrationally accepting a view of God or what the Scripture says. From
within the framework of Scripture it is rational and it is consistent and it is
not without validation.
Notice
I didn’t say proof. That is where we get into the real issues. Most
people make a strategic error because they try to go to something to prove the
truth of God. But in the very attempt to prove that God is true that
implies going to a higher standard than God, something over and above God,
which you are going to use to prove God. What is a higher authority than
God? Nothing. So you can’t act as if there is some autonomous
universal principle that hangs out there that you can appeal to that is equally
the same for believer and unbeliever.
Now
that is a quick summary and what I want to do is go back to the nine points
that I finished with last time because they lay the foundation for our thinking
in this area. Then we will get to a little more practical application. The
other thing we want to come away with is an understanding of how to be a little
more effective in evangelism and our strategy of answering the questions that
an unbeliever may ask. We don’t want to commit the error that Proverbs
warns about – not answering a fool according to his folly. Just
because they ask a question doesn’t mean that it is a question that should be
answered. So we have to learn to think a little more consistently here.
The
second thing we are going to get out of this is we are going to develop
discernment. It all builds our ability to think critically about what we
are doing and about how we think.
And
for those of you who are parents and who have children the third thing is that
it will help be able to impart this to your children and kids in prep school so
that they can learn to think critically. We live in a world today where kids
and all of us bombarded all of the time with all kinds of human viewpoint
garbage. A lot of it sounds good. We absorb it and it becomes part of
our thinking and we don’t even know it. I sit around and talk to Christians day in and day out and they make various
statements thinking that it is okay or it is divine viewpoint. But it is
human viewpoint garbage. But they don’t realize it because they have never been
taught to think about things in terms of systems. That is a deeper way to
talk about it.
Let’s
go to a Scripture that we are very familiar with to review. When we talk
to an unbeliever our point of contact isn’t reason because the problem with the
unbeliever isn’t rationalism. It isn’t that the problem is logic. The
problem is sin. That is ultimately what has to be exposed in any kind of
gospel presentation situation.
NKJ Romans 1:19 because
what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
In
other words the unbeliever knows that God exists. He may say it’s a
problem of logic, but that is just a smokescreen. He may say it’s a
problem of evidence, but that is just a smoke screen. The problem is that
in the arrogance of his fallen nature he wants to suppress the truth that God
exists. That’s verse 20.
NKJ Romans 1:20 For
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that
they are without excuse,
NKJ Romans 1:21 because,
although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but
became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
The
unbeliever has enough data available to him so that he can be held
accountable.
NKJ Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from
heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the
truth in unrighteousness,
So
you know three things when you are starting to communicate to an
unbeliever.
So
it’s not like you have to know every answer or be able to deal with every
issue; but you have to understand what the dynamics are. If you want to
use the analogy of football game, you have to understand what the rules of the
football games are so that you are playing within the right area of endeavor.
What
we are talking about is apologetics.
That is what happens in Genesis 3. Satan comes along to the woman and says, “Did God really say…” In other words, is it true that if you eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil you will die? The woman fell for it. She started to answer a fool according to his folly. As soon as she did, she bit the bait in the trap. She put herself in the position to verify, validate whether or not God was true. She put herself in a position of judging the veracity of God. At that instant everything dominoed, ending up with her sin.
That
is the framework for looking at how we present the gospel.
There
are three systems of human viewpoint thinking - rationalism, empiricism, mysticism. What they have in common is a starting point
of faith in human ability. Remember that I pointed out that this isn’t that
there are three systems of perception – empiricism, rationalism, and
faith. That juxtaposes faith to reason and may make faith
non-rational. At the core of all of these is a faith in human ability to
properly interpret and understand the data – whatever it is, whether it
is starting with reason, starting with experience or starting with his own intuition. The key word under methodology is
they all operate on something that is independent of what God said.
The
divine viewpoint position is that we start with revelation. We can’t start
with revelation here and then cross over the gap between us
and the unbeliever and operate on his assumptions and to try to bring
him back over here. His assumptions are all flawed assumptions of a rebellious
creature. So we have to hold our ground. Often believers think (these
are different schools of apologetics) that the point of common ground between
the believer and unbeliever is rationalism. It is usually expressed as
logic or the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction means
something can’t be both A and non-A at the same time in the same way. In
other words something can’t be blue and not blue at the same
time. Something can’t be tall and not tall at the same time. If you are
saying that contradicts itself logically then one statement or the other is
false. It assumes that you can prove truth on the basis of
reason. What this assumes is that reason for the unbeliever is the same as
it is for the believer.
I
am going to give you an example of that. I want to use as an example
tonight CS
Lewis because two weeks ago we showed The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe here on
family night in order to give people an opportunity to watch a film based on
the book that he wrote which he intended to be used as pre-evangelism to
utilize a lot of symbols and images that you find in Christianity in order to
communicate some broad Christian principles.
The
hero in the story is Aslan the lion. That comes from
the fact that Jesus Christ is said to be the Lion of Judah. The word Aslan comes from the Persian meaning “lion”. So the
lion is the hero who comes and he is the one that is going to conquer winter
that the evil witch has brought. The evil witch is analogous to
Satan. Under Satan’s rule, human history is dead. It is white and
everything is cold. There is no life. It is only after Aslan dies and comes back to life that you have full spring
coming in. Only when he returns does he bring life. You have the
imagery of him going and breathing on these different people and animals that
have been turned into stone objects. It is a picture of the Holy Spirit,
breath. The Holy Spirit is the one who brings life. There are all of these
images in there. They have to go to battle and they win the
battle. Even after they win the first battle, there is an ongoing
battle. That is a picture of the Christian life – once you are saved
there is an ongoing battle afterwards. There are all of these images that
he uses that are quite good
One
that I found quite intriguing is one based on an argument that he is famous for
developing called the Lord, liar, lunatic argument. I have used that many
times. I am not saying that it is a wrong argument; it is how you use the argument,
not should you use the argument.
Before
I get into this I want to give you a little caveat here. I don’t want any
to think as I talk about Lewis and later on as I point out some of the flaws
that I am suggesting that you shouldn’t read Lewis. I think you
should. I think you would be making a mistake. I think his book Mere Christianity
is a good book. A lot of people have found it very helpful. It is
interesting that in the last month I have been aware of two or three cases
where unbelievers have read Mere Christianity (they were new believers or struggling believers
who have been given that book) and the Lord has used that to get their
attention and turn them around. In one case I know of that plus the use of the
foundation series that I did last year a man and his wife and kids all came to
know the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior. These are good tools to use -
Josh McDowell’s book Evidence that Demands a Verdict. But what I am trying to do as
I go through this is give you (especially if you are a parent or a grandparent
and you are reading these things to your kids) a way you can think a little
more perceptively about what is going on.
At
one point in The
Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (at the very beginning), little Lucy goes
off through the wardrobe into the land of Narnia. She comes back and she
tells her two brothers and sister about it and they don’t believer
her. She sees a reality. It is not an alternative reality. It is
analogous to the unbeliever who suddenly realizes he has gone from materialism
to supernaturalism realizing there is a broader reality than just the material
universe.
That
was important for Lewis because after WWI he became a
materialist. He went through this whole progression from an atheist to
Platonism to idealism to materialism. So he realized as he learned about
the Bible and came to a belief in God and then a belief in Jesus Christ that
there was a greater reality that existed beyond the senses. When you just
have the autonomous use of reason and empiricism, you have a limited
reality. But when you believe what God says about reality, it is a broader
reality and it is truth. That was a very important theme for Lewis in the
book.
Lucy
comes back and she ends up going back to Narnia. She is
followed by her brother Edmund.
When
they come back, the other two siblings ask Edmund, “Well, did you go to
Narnia?”
He
said, “No, no. It is just make-believe.”
He
just lies about it.
The
three kids if you remember are living in this house with this elderly aged
professor who is roughly modeled on CS Lewis himself who opened his
home to children from London during the period of the bombing during World War
II. So this aged professor comes out and he talks to the kids.
He
says as they are wondering what to do about Lucy and the tales she is telling
about Narnia, “Well, who is the more honest of the two? Edmund or
Lucy?”
Peter
says, “It is Lucy. Edmund frequently lies, but Lucy doesn’t lie.”
“Okay. If
Lucy is not a liar, has she lost her mind? Is she insane? Has she gone
crazy?”
“No,
there is no evidence whatsoever that Lucy has lost her mind.”
“Then
what she is telling you must be truth.”
That
is an illustration of his classic argument that when Jesus Christ came to the
earth He claimed to be identical with God. Either he was telling the truth
or He was lying. Does He give evidence of being a liar? Is there
evidence in anything that He taught or said that He was a deceptive person? No, not at all. Well, we have dismissed that
option. Was He crazy? Was He a lunatic? Was He someone who
believed He was chopped liver? No not at all. There is no evidence in
anything that He says that He is insane or psychopathic or psychotic or
schizophrenic or anything else. Well, if he is not a liar and he is not
crazy then what He says must be true. Therefore He must be who He claims
to be. That is true God of true God, the Savior of the universe.
It
is a wonderful argument for who Jesus Christ is. I have used it many times
and others have used it. CS Lewis is the one to first to
set that up. What has he done in that argument? That argument is
built upon a certain view of logic. Now it is a view of logic that I
believe everyone in this room shares. But if some post modernist came in
here that is intelligent and consistent with their supposition of pure
relativism in the universe, they aren’t going to buy that argument. They
don’t have to. At foundational level they reject that view of logic.
“That
is your logic and your reality; but that is not my logic and my
reality. In my reality I don’t have to accept those as the only
options.”
Do
you see what I am saying?
What
you see here with Lewis is that he fits into the top category that he has a
view that ultimately the common ground between the believer and unbeliever has
to do with something in the area of reason.
There
is another group of apologists. This is where I put Josh McDowell. I have
used McDowell’s book “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”. I have given it
to a lot of shaky believers and a few unbelievers who were wresting with the
issue of evidence in the truth of Christianity. It is important to say
evidence. If there is a truth claim, then there are two things you can
do. You can either prove it by a higher authority or you can show that if
this is true then there is correlating, validating evidence. That is the
difference in how you are approaching it.
These
are folks that would say, “We can prove that the tomb was empty”.
You
can look at all of the historical data that we have in the gospels and in extra
biblical literature as the tomb was
empty. Therefore if the tomb was empty Jesus must be who He claimed to be
because He rose from the dead. What’s the problem?
The
problem is you have many unbelievers operating on post modern
assumptions or existential assumptions that say, “That’s true. But you
know that there are a lot of weird things that happen in life. Just the
fact that the tomb was empty is just another unexplained anomaly in history and
I don’t have to believe that.”
Once
again what they are doing is they are enveloping what you are saying in their
suppression agenda. They are just suppressing that truth in
unrighteousness
Flying
away and unanchored to anything is mysticism which
produces a view of apologetics called fideism for the Latin for
faith. It’s not the kind of faith that we talk about as a faith grounded
in Scripture where there is evidence of God’s work in space, time and
creation. It is the ideas that there may not be any validating
data. We just believe it because we have to have something to believe
in. So we take a leap of faith. That was evidenced
by a Danish philosopher by the name of Kierkegaard. So what we
would say is that the most consistent approach is revelation. The point of
common ground between the believer and the unbeliever is his inherent internal
knowledge that God exists. It is within them. What we have to avoid
is having this situation where you have God on the left. Man is down
below; but he thinks of morality and reason and natural law and history as
having their own autonomous self-existent eternal existence that God is
answerable to the concepts of justice, reason, law, or these autonomous or
abstract principles. So, we appeal to them in neutrality with the
unbeliever. I want to show you by going to Lewis what I mean by that.
Lewis
was born in Belfast, Ireland. His name was Clive Staples Lewis. When he
was four years old he decided he wanted to be called Jack. So throughout
the rest of his life his friends always referred to him as Jack. When he was a
little boy he started reading and he read voraciously. He read all kinds
of things. He was influenced by different writers. He
loved Beatrix Potter and all of her books. He wrote his first novel at the
age of 12. When he was ten years old his mother died. His father
shipped him off to various private schools in England. It was during that
time that he came under the influence of various teachers that led him to
atheism. For that reason he always had a bone to pick with the public education
system in England (the boarding school system) because of the agnosticism and
atheism of many of the teachers.
He
served in the army in France in WWI. Just as he was to
matriculate at Oxford (He went there long enough to get into their officer
training corps.), he was immediately called up to active duty and sent to
France in January, 1917. He was wounded at the
Battle of Eras in April 15, 1917 and immediately shipped back home. He was
wounded by what we call today friendly fire from an artillery shell that should
not have been near him. His best friend was killed during the war. He
had made a promise to him that if he died that Lewis would take the
responsibility to take care of his sister and his mother. He took care of
his friend’s younger sister until she got married and he took care of his
friend’s mother until she died in 1951. That gives you a sense of his
integrity and honor.
He
was a member of an Oxford club called the Coal Biters that would sit around and
read out loud Norse and Icelandic sagas and myths in the original
language. When he was 16 years old his Greek teacher said that he had read
more of the classics than anyone he knew and had a greater natural ability to
translate from Greek into English. The Coal Biters Club was
founded by another famous writer by the name of JR Tolken
who is the one who wrote the Lord of the Rings trilogy. They were best
friends. One of the other reasons that I am talking about Lewis is that some
people in the church are reading Lewis and there are some people in the
congregation who have read Lewis and don’t like Lewis. For those who have
read Lewis and frankly he never appealed to me that much, Tolken
disliked the Narnia chronicles. He thought they were hastily written and
unrealistic. He knew his friend Jack cold do better.
Lewis
was a confirmed bachelor. He did marry at the age 60 to a divorced former
communist of Jewish heritage who was a believer. That marriage lasted three
years and she died of cancer. That is what the play and movie Shadow Lands is based on. If you
haven’t seen that I would recommend that. He wrote all kinds of different
works. The apologetic work that he is most widely known for is Mere Christianity. But he also
wrote a book called Miracles
which dealt with how to understand the fact that God can perform
miracles in history. That is a well-done book. He does a good job in his
argument there. He also wrote a book called The Problem of Pain where he dealt with
the whole question of how can a good loving God allow
undeserved suffering to exist in history. He wrote a number of children’s
books. Not only did he write the Narnia series, but he also wrote some
science fiction for children. All of this was somehow related to
presenting a Christian worldview within his writing.
When
he was a young man after WWI he came out of Word War I as
still an atheist. He goes through various different schools of
thought. He was a materialist. A relative of a close friend was
beginning to die. As he observed his death, it caused Lewis to start rethinking
his materialist philosophy. He goes through a period of about 8 years when
we would say that he gradually shifts his views toward God finally coming to a
saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was through the influence of
several people. For example he read GK Chesterton who had
become a believer. He loved reading him. He also had as his best friend JRR Tolken
who influenced him. Tolken always was a Roman
Catholic. He never left the Roman Catholic Church so that was his view of
Christianity.
It
came to the point towards the end of his 20’s that Lewis realized that most of
his friends including many of favorite authors such as Chesterton and Johnson
and Spencer and Milton were all Christians who held to a Christian
worldview. He realized that he needed to rethink his view of
Christianity. By his late 20’s two paths were beginning to intersect in
his thinking. One was from a vantage point of reason. He was
beginning to realize that Christianity was rational.
Let’s
think about that critically. What’s going on here? He is coming out
of a very rational background. As an unbeliever he was a
Platonist. Platonism always equates to rationalism. He was
Darwinian. He never gave that up. He always had this problem with
reason being the ultimate arbiter of truth. He never really subordinated
reason into that triangle we have for God. The problem is that morality, reason
and natural law have to be in God and not outside of God in a biblical worldview. He
never quite got there.
He
became a believer when he was 33 years of age. That began his life as an
apology. He did a lot of positive things. Some of the books I
mentioned earlier are very good. He also wrote an article called Faulting the
Bible Critics. I have a reprint of it. Remember that Lewis in his
career was one of the greatest scholars of medieval English literature. He was
a professor of medieval and Renaissance English. That was his
field. That was his area of expertise. The reason I mention this
particular article because he is interacting what a number of so-called experts
of the New Testament claim about the New Testament. We are faced with the
same kind of thing today where people come along and say that Paul and James
and John really didn’t write the New Testament. It was really cobbled
together by different people. The New Testament was really written in the
late or early 1st century by people who weren’t even eyewitnesses of
Jesus. All of this talk about Jesus being God is just legend and myth that
grew up around Jesus and was then inserted into the gospels.
I
love the way he begins. He opens the article by saying…
“The undermining of the old
orthodoxy has been mainly the work of the divines engaged in New Testament
criticism.”
He
recognizes that these are professional New Testament scholars. They are
not really believers though. They are operating on liberal
assumptions. What they claim is that the Bible is filled with legend and
romance. Lewis says in reaction or response to this….
“A man who has spent his youth
and manhood in the minute study of the New Testament text and of other people’s
study of them whose literary experiences of those texts lack any standard of
comparison”
That’s
all they have done is study the New Testament so they don’t have any broader
understanding of literature.
“such
as can only grow from a wide and deep and genial experience of literature in
general is I should think very likely to miss the obvious things about them. If
he tells that something in a gospel is legend and romance I want to know how
many legends and romances he has read, how well his palate is trained in
detecting them by their flavor, not how many years he has spent on that gospel.
But I had better turn to some examples.”
That
was his basic thesis. These guys are claiming that this is legend here and
that is myth there. What is their experience with legend and myth?
“I have spent my whole career in
medieval English literature studying legend and myth. I know legend and
myth when I see it and it’s not in the Bible.”
So
he has some great things to say. He wrote tremendous article in defense of
Christianity.
Let’s
look at some of the flaws. That is where we develop a little discernment.
In
his view of God, Lewis wrote…
“In all developed religions we
find three strands or elements and in Christianity one more.”
What
has he just done? Christianity adds something to everything else. It
is not categorically different from every other kind of religion. He
viewed it as more reasonable or more rational. Therefore it was
true. This is typical of British evangelicals. I know you will find
this hard to believe. I have always found this hard to factor in. In
American evangelicalism one of the foundational beliefs is the inerrancy and
infallibility of the Bible. We believe it is very Word of God without
error. This is foreign to British evangelicalism. It was foreign to
Lewis. So you see that his starting point is a weak view of Scripture and
a high view of human reason. Now if you really pressed him, if we got him
in here and sat him down and really pushed, he would probably stick with
Scripture. But he gave away too much in what he said at points. He had a view
of God that was a little weak as well.
According
to Lewis there was a common goal and norm between Christians and
non-Christians. It was morality. That was his common ground. But
when he comes to talk about God he says that there are certain ideas about God
that are common to believers and unbelievers and that is our point of
commonality. This is seen in his book in the Wind and the Willows.
I
have used this quote many times to get people to think a little more deeply
about what worship is. It is a great illustration of what worship
is. But it also reveals something a little weak in Lewis’ view of God
In
the Wind of the Willows the mole asks
the rat, “Are you afraid?”
And
the rat, his eyes shining with unutterable love answers, “Afraid? Of him? Oh never! Never! And yet o mole, I am
afraid.”
There
is that sense that when we come into the presence of God that you can’t control
God. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. That is what
Lewis is trying to communicate in that phraseology. If you read all of
Lewis, it is this idea of the dread that is what everybody (believer and
unbeliever) has of God and that is a point of commonality. So he is
already interpreting this view of nature and putting that in as his view of common
ground.
It
shows up in other ways as well. At the beginning of his book Mere Christianity
he says in talking about how a believer can relate to an unbeliever he talks
about the fact that everybody has this idea of what is right and what is good versus
what is wrong. He uses various examples. He says…
“He is appealing to some kind of
standard or behavior which he expects the other man to know about.”
In
other words when we say this is right or this is wrong or it shouldn’t be done
that way or it ought to be done another way we expect the other person to share
our values. And so he goes on to explain that this is a basic law of human
nature that we all share the same sense of right or wrong. He calls this
the law of nature.
“I know that some people say the
idea of law of nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound because
different civilizations in different ages have quite different
moralities. But this is not true.”
That
is where I would challenge him.
“There have been differences
between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a
total difference.”
As
an illustration I talked about a film based on the book The Peace Child by Don
Richardson. Don Richardson was a missionary with New Tribes Missions back
in the 60’s. He and his wife were dropped off somewhere on a beachhead
somewhere in Papua, New Guinea.
They
go into the interior and they make contact with a Stone Age tribe that has
never ever seen a white person. They set up a base camp and begin to give
food and trade goods and start to interact with the people and to learn their
language. Eventually over a period of two or three years they are able to
learn the language they begin to tell the story about salvation. They
started with Jesus. They come to the point where Jesus
is betrayed by Judas then He is killed and crucified and He dies for our
sins. When they get to the story about Judas, everybody applauds
him. Wait a minute! What’s going on? They were confused. Jesus
turns out to be the dupe. Judas is the good guy. What is going on
with their system of right and wrong? What they discovered within the
culture the highest standard, the greatest thing one person could do is to
deceive another person to the degree that it cost them their life. Think
about that. They completely perverted the whole sense of right and
wrong. So Judas is the good guy and Jesus is the dupe. If you think
about that there is no basis for any kind of integrity or honesty. This
was a real problem that the Richardson’s faced in trying to communicate the
gospel to these people. I use that as an illustration of a culture that
doesn’t have a sense of right or wrong and doesn’t have that as a point of
common ground which is what Lewis goes on to say.
So
I don’t leave you hanging on the story of the Richardson’s, what they had to
figure out how did these people ever demonstrate that they are telling the
truth? If the highest value is lying, how do you ever convince someone you
are telling the truth? When things deteriorate so much that everything was
about to fall apart one chief from one little clan would give a newborn baby as
a peace child to the chief of the other clan. That was a sign that what I
am saying is true. So then they were able to take that analogy and use
that to communicate that Jesus Christ is God’s peace child to man. All of
this is a part of apologetics.
What
Lewis does with the law of morality is that he talks about how this is
used. He says that it is the same thing as mathematics. Now what he
is doing strategically is he is saying mathematics, natural law, and morality
all exist abstractly. There are eternal principles. You appeal to
them. As a Christian nothing exists independently from
God. Everything comes from God. God is the source of reason. God
is the source of mathematics. If you really want to study that in
interesting detail listen to Charlie Clough’s Framework Series from about
lesson 114 to 120. He develops a whole history of how the Greeks didn’t
believe in irrational numbers. We all loved irrational numbers when we
were in junior high and high school. So we have a math system that
includes irrational numbers but computers can’t do any computing with
irrational numbers. So we have a math system that somehow doesn’t fit
reality. Ultimately we have a lot of flaws in math. In fact he gives
a lot of illustrations of how they solve for various equations working square
roots. You end up with a negative number for speed. It’s not because
you made a mistake in your calculation, it’s that our concept of logic in math
is based on empiricism. Only when we derive it from the Godhead can we
come to ultimate truth.
A
quote I used a couple of weeks ago was from a guy named Charles Elliot who was
a Unitarian President of Harvard who spoke to Summer School of Theology in 1909
and he gave this address speaking about the new religion that will dominate the
future,
“The new thought of God will be
its most characteristic element in the religion of the future. This idea
will comprehend the idea of a Jewish Jehovah, the Christian universal Father,
the modern physicist omnipresence exhaustless energy and the biological
conception of a vital force.”
In
other words, it is going to be like a Star Wars religion.
“The new religion God rejects
absolutely the concept that God is alienated from the world. It rejects
also the entire conception of man being a fallen being.”
The
idea that God is alienated from the world is what we would call the
creator-creature distinction. This is where Lewis broke down. He
still views God as being in the chain of being because he still has these
Darwinian presuppositions from his human viewpoint still lurking around in his
post salvation experience. .
Charles
Elliot goes on to say…
“In all its theory and in all its
practice, the religion of the future will be completely natural. It will
place no reliance on any sort of magic or miracle or other violation of or
exception to the laws of nature.”
What
he is saying is we are going to have this thing called natural law. Now
what Lewis was doing is saying that morality is natural law. This is the
common ground between the unbeliever and the believer.
If
you pushed Lewis to the extreme he would say, “Natural law is what I mean by
the character of God.”
But
that is not how he treated it. This is what happened strategically with what
sometimes these apologists will do.
They
say, “We will deal with that later. We will talk about natural law and
reason as autonomous concepts right now.”
But
the strategic error is that it allows the unbeliever to read into those terms
everything in his human viewpoint system.
I
know that this hasn’t been easy and you have hung in there through most of
it. At the very least I want you to think about how you think and come to
an understanding that we have to think on the presupposition and assumption of
a Trinitarian God who has spoken clearly to man and that His revelation is
going to address more than just salvation, more than your spiritual life and
how to live your life. What a narrow immature focus. His revelation
is going to tell us how to think about everything in life from the way we
interact with other people in terms of family and social structures, marriage,
family, employers and employees. It is also going to go on to talk about
how we interact with finances. Even deeper than that,
the Word of God is going to help us think about the very function of economics
as an intellectual discipline. And literature is a discipline and
the very fact of thinking as a discipline.
This
book that we talk about is so deep and so profound. When we dig into this
thing it will rip across everything that we can possibly think about. We
can study it for the next million years and we won’t plumb its
depths. That’s what so amazing about this. That is why you can’t get
any where by showing up in church on Sunday morning. If this really is
training ground to train and prepare us and to build capacity for wisdom so
that we can rule and reign with Christ in the Millennial Kingdom, then we have
to get with it. We have to get beyond kindergarten and first
grade. That is exactly what the writer of Hebrews is saying. He is
saying because of their regression, because they have backed up, he has to go
back and re-teach the elemental doctrines rather than pushing on beyond the
basics about Jesus to the serious doctrines that he wants to cover in the rest
of the book. Now if that was true in the first century, how much more true
is that today? Doctrine isn’t some little thing that we learn about so
that can solve problems and deal with people in the details of our day-to-day
life. It challenges us to think in a completely new way – a biblical
way so that we can be prepared for that future destiny.
Let’s bow our heads in closing prayer.