lewis and stott

It's not uncommon in the Rob Bell discussion to hear, what about CS Lewis? what about John Stott?

Adrian Warnock offers this on Lewis (and I agree):

1. He did believe in Punishment, but stressed mans role in choosing that punishment
2. He suggested these things tentatively as possibilities rather than boldly
3. He didn’t mock the other view as hopelessly inadequate and “a bad story”
4. Unlike Rob Bell, Lewis did not claim to be an Evangelical insider. He was a broad C of E churchman who Evangelicals listened to but did not expect to agree with on everything – a bit like N.T. Wright today. Lewis stressed the idea.

Stott on the other hand wrote, "The [hell] fire itself is termed “eternal” and “unquenchable,” but it would be very odd if what is thrown into it proves indestructible. Our expectation would be the opposite: it would be consumed for ever, not tormented for ever. Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire has done its work) which “rises for ever and ever.”’

With that, Stott is still able to write clearly about consequences of sin (quoted below from Warnock).

Similarly, Jesus taught that the easy way, entered by the wide gate, leads to destruction. He did not define what he meant by this, and presumably the precise nature of hell is as much beyond our finite understanding as the precise nature of heaven. But the terrible word ‘destruction’ (terrible because God is properly the Creator, not the Destroyer, and because man was created to live, not to die) seems at least to give us liberty to say that everything good will be destroyed in hell—love and loveliness, beauty and truth, joy, peace and hope—and that for ever. It is a prospect too awful to contemplate without tears. For the broad road is suicide road.

By contrast, the hard way, entered by the narrow gate, leads to life, even to that ‘eternal life’ which Jesus explained in terms of fellowship with God, beginning here but perfected hereafter, in which we see and share his glory, and find perfect fulfilment as human beings in the selfless service of him and of our fellows.

-John R. W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) : Christian Counter-Culture, The Bible speaks today (Leicester [Leicestershire; Downers Grove, Ill., U.S.A.: Inter-varsity Press, 1985), 195.

And also, when speaking of 2 Thessalonians 1:

For example, the punishment will be ‘eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord’ (RSV); they will be shut out (NIV) or ‘cut off’ (REB) from his presence. Do these words throw any light on the debate between biblical Christians about the nature of hell? That the final state of those who reject God and Christ will be awful and eternal is not in dispute. But the question whether their exclusion-destruction means conscious torment or ultimate annihilation cannot be settled by an appeal to this verse and its vocabulary, since the apostle does not here clearly allude to either.

In contrast to the appalling nature of hell, Paul goes on to portray the glory of heaven.


- John R. W. Stott, The Message of Thessalonians : The Gospel & the End of Time, The Bible speaks today (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., U.S.A.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 148-49.

In the end, I fail to understand why Lewis and Stott are raised in the Bell discussion. I miss the similarity. In fact, I see more the differences. Some times I think it might be because behind this is the suggestion that perhaps folks like me aren't open to differing ideas. If so, the use of Lewis and Stott is disingenuous and fails to make the point. As noted, it actually shows that when differing ideas are shared in a respectful and a Bible based manner, they can not only be heard but often can be learned from.

Sorry, the use of Lewis and Stott only reinforces what I was thinking.