Thus, it's not surprising that Lewis avoids taking a strong stance on a theory of atonement. The 'doctrines' we get out of the true myth are of course less true: they are translations into our concepts and ideas. It is true, not in the sense of being a 'description' of God (that no finite mind could take in) but in the sense of being the way in which God chooses to (or can) appear to our faculties. Rather than seeking a systematic theological perspective, he understood the story of Christ as a 'true myth.' As he explains: Lewis is well-known for not calling himself a theologian. Is this actually the model of the atonement that Lewis preferred? It seems odd that a Protestant would adhere to a model largely displaced by others for the last thousand years. Though the word 'ransom' is not used, the Devil owns the sinner and gives him up only after justice is satisfied through a sacrifice. This portrayal of the atonement sounds to me most like the ransom theory of atonement. In response, Aslan, the representation of Christ, says:Īslan then proceeds to give himself up to the White Witch, who kills him to appease the Deep Magic.

Unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to a kill. You at least know the Magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. Lewis's The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (spoiler alert), the White Witch, the personification of the devil, says some interesting things:

Cs lewis the lion