CS Lewis' Trilemma Is Better Than You Think

In his book Mere Christianity, CS Lewis popularized the argument that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. It’s a logically valid argument. But is it sound? Many would quickly respond with a resounding “no”. That's because there's another option that Lewis apparently didn't consider. Modern biblical criticism has shown that the Gospels are a mix of fact and legend.

In a thread criticizing Lewis' trilemma, comedian Rhett McLaughlin proposed a dilemma of his own: "Lewis was either not as well-versed in these matters as many thought, or he figured his readers were not well-versed enough to raise this seemingly obvious objection." Here I show that Lewis was familiar with the legend option and wasn't impressed by it at all.

Join this channel to get access to perks:

[MarmadukeFan]

The point of the trilemna argument was specifically to blow up the notion that Jesus was a mere moral teacher by pointing to the claim of divinity. Its force isn’t in proving Christ’s divinity, it’s in disproving a conception of Jesus as a nice guy hippie.

[Jerkasaur]

Lewis was an atheist. Lewis came to his faith reluctantly and only through rigorous examination. He’s not one for overlooking details. Lewis was brilliant.

[cbrooks]

We can certainly misuse the trilemma, but Lewis did not. It's right there in the text: He was talking to and about people who read the gospels, believe them, but say, "Jesus was just a great moral teacher." He was not talking to people who believe the gospels are myths. If he was talking to those people, he would have martialed the arguments you quote from the other address.

[krazoChrist]

One of the first books I read after becoming a Christian was a book by the popular textual critic, and best selling author, Bart Ehrman. I've never read something so pedantic, so pompously petty, in my entire life - and I say this as someone who enjoys reading classical and modern philosophy.

Even within his own book, Bart Ehrman confessed to the strong evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus, and his apparent subsequent resurrection. The evidence for the earliest Christians certainly believing that Jesus rose from the dead is beyond reproach. I specifically remember him flailing about for possible alternatives, including an appeal to the widely discredited "mushroom cult" theory.

After reading that, I read Mere Christianity, and it was like a breath of fresh air. Lewis' logical and wise analysis of the profound teaching woven consistently throughout Scripture felt like a return to sanity. And many things that Lewis said struck a deep chord with me, as I recognized the nature of having a personal relationship with God in my own life. He is brilliant thinker, and a terrific writer, who has brought rational assurance to many Christians. Thank you God for C.S. Lewis.

[islander]

Rhett and Link went from a simplistic Christianity to a simplistic rejection of it.

[nachoooooo]

I used to wonder if Lewis was actually objectively a great scholar or just a Christian fan favorite and thus considered great. After some research I can confirm objectively that he was not only a great scholar, there's a compelling case to call him the greatest scholar of the 20th century

[annasmith]

It's always good to hear more support for the cannon of the Bible. Corrie Ten Boom said that one of the reasons why she believed the gospels to be true is that the authors do not possible themselves in good lights. They wrote the gospels and gained nothing from it- not even pride. In fact they died for it.

[DookyButter]

In any case, it's humorous to watch a YouTuber like Rhett to try and condescend an intellectual giant such as Lewis. That certainly doesn't make Rhett's objections wrong, but the context of both men's background is certainly interesting to consider.

[thestoneclarksville]

Rhett and Link's deconstruction was sad in how emotional it was. For link especially it boiled down to "love is love" and like his homosexual friends. While it's not true of all deconstructions, in their case, it seems obvious that it was a comprise with the world as they gained success and worldly friends, and justifications came later.

[AC-fiol]

Thank you for your work on this. I sat under an "Orthodox Christian" religion professor at a state university that began to question the deity of Christ. I brought up the Lewis trilemma in class. The professor encouraged me to share in class. Which he then pointed out that was true if the Scriptures were reliable. Then I didn't have a response. Now I do. I didn't know about the work Lewis did with the church leadership.

[jaserader]

Polycarp called Jesus
"our Lord and God Jesus Christ"
That alone debunks the development hypothesis
so the trilemma still stands.

[solonkazos]

Love CS Lewis. I read Mere Christianity about 40 years ago. It shows Jesus is alive and was here on earth doing His work 2000 years ago. You did some good documentation work here, great video.

[TheLastWhiteKid]

Rhett and Link rejecting Christ devastated me. I still pray for them every once in a while when I am reminded. They reminded me of my friends growing up and we all had a strong kindred to them.

[KittysDawn]

I adore CS Lewis for his ability to point out what rational logic actually is. Surely a man needed in this age of all ages. Everyone now is convinced of the power and rationale of their own mind. I leaned on his writing heavily to help dismantle mistakes put in to me by the seemingly good sense of others. His work is great for provoking thought as well. Nuance you may not have considered on your own. But ultimately I think all believers need to understand one thing. CS Lewis' rational defense of faith has the same limit of all rationality. The human mind. Though all modern minds are pygmy's compared to his, it's a consideration everyone should take very soberly. If one tried hard enough, we could find genuine holes in any man made logic. The solution becomes apparent when you reach the limit of 2000 years of human thought on the same subject. All men stopped at the same point as they peer at the horizon.

If you disagree with God, you are just wrong.

Everyone who pushes themselves far enough will probably come to the same choice. Between my ability to understand why God is right and accepting God is right, what do I choose? I'm sure CS Lewis himself understood this choice too. Probably appreciating it more than me. I know from his writing he appreciated that God IS the foundation of truth in absolutes. His entire body of writings rely on the supposition that God is just true. Ability to explain that truth helps but.. what do you choose? Do you choose your own mind or God? And you MUST choose. To refuse the choice is to have already chosen because you are born in to the default choice. Your own mind. Not that honing logic is bad, but everyone must understand this choice lay before you even in the act of doing that.

And frankly it reveals a disturbing truth in belief through the ages. Like this video highlights, many will claim belief in God then undermine Him gleefully. As if God could not get the Truth to us just as he wanted us to see it. Is the God of their mind so feeble?

[mercinc]

I love the idea that the power that could raise a corpse from the dead is some how unable to restore any decay that occurred because of the length of time that the corpse was a corpse.

It's like saying that a car mechanic couldn't have got an old car running again because he would have had to replace the battery and you don't believe he is capable of either.

[dpwellman]

Rhet spent many years trying to reconcile his religious upbringing (South) with the humanistic, even nihilist, culture of southern California. And the culture won. Won in part with the ploy of using one's concepts brotherly love and compassion against him-- that a person's behavior and the person are one and the same and to reject unhealthy behaviors is to deny one's person hood. It is labeled "judgemental". Further, if we say a certain lifestyle is unhealthy, even dangerous, are hateful bigots and not the light of Christ .

The problem with Rhett and others like him is the conversion (or deconstruction) often has a large component of emotional reasoning rather than intellectual and so we get arguments like these, that on the face might seem cogent, but are simplistic and well. . . wrong.

[JabberWkie]

Well done! I was waiting on this one after watching the Paulogia rebuttal.

In light of this information, I now see CS Lewis’s liar, lunatic, or Lord argument as a sort of closing statement to his broader musings on the subject rather than a standalone argument.

[thomasdenmark]

Fantastic. I had someone use the "scriptures are unreliable" argument on me when I mentioned Lewis' Lord, Liar, or Lunatic trilemma. I wish I'd known this follow up argument from Lewis then. Ah well, now I'm armed for the next time.

[matthewbauerle]

I just got a FB ad for an audiobook titled "The UFO that took Jesus. The truth about who Christ was."

So the options are liar, lunatic, Lord, or the person adding new options is a lunatic.

[cainonleeds]

Just found this channel and this right here is some good content! I've been a long-time fan of Lewis' work, so I'm definitely gonna want to get my hands on that essay you mentioned.

I've also been reading some G. K. Chesterton lately, and I appreciate the way that both he and Lewis contended for the faith with their knowledge of literature, philosophy, and generally what we would consider the humanities today. I think it's an area of study that has been neglected by Christianity for some time, and I think some of our more contemporary weaksauce arguments can attest to the damage done by that kind of neglect.