Hubbry Logo
Lewis's trilemmaLewis's trilemmaMain
Open search
Lewis's trilemma
Community hub
Lewis's trilemma
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Lewis's trilemma
Lewis's trilemma
Lewis's trilemma
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Lewis's trilemma is an apologetic argument traditionally used to argue for the divinity of Jesus by postulating that the only alternatives were that he was evil or mad.[1] One version was popularised by University of Oxford literary scholar and writer C. S. Lewis in a BBC radio talk and in his writings. It is sometimes described as the "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord", or "Mad, Bad, or God" argument. It takes the form of a trilemma — a choice among three options, each of which is in some way difficult to accept.

A form of the argument can be found as early as 1846, and many other versions of the argument preceded Lewis's formulation in the 1940s. The argument has played an important part in Christian apologetics. Criticisms of the argument have included that it relies on the assumption that Jesus claimed to be God, while biblical scholars who wrote books about the historical Jesus "one thing they all agree on: Jesus did not spend his ministry declaring himself to be divine",[2][3] and that it is logically unsound since it presents an incomplete set of options.

History

[edit]

This argument has been used in various forms throughout church history.[4] It was used by the American preacher Mark Hopkins in Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity (1846), a book based on lectures delivered in 1844.[5] Another early use of this approach was by the Scottish preacher "Rabbi" John Duncan (1796–1870), around 1859–1860. He stated:

"Christ either deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable."[6]

J. Gresham Machen used a similar line of argument in fifth chapter of his famous work Christianity and Liberalism (1923). There, Machen says:

"The real trouble is that the lofty claim of Jesus, if ... the claim was unjustified, places a moral stain upon Jesus' character. What shall be thought of a human being who lapsed so far from the path of humility and sanity as to believe the eternal destinies of the world were committed into his hands? The truth is that if Jesus be merely an example, he is not a worthy example for he claimed to be far more."[7]

Others who used this approach included N. P. Williams,[8] R. A. Torrey,[9][10] and W. E. Biederwolf.[11] The writer G. K. Chesterton used something similar to the trilemma in his book, The Everlasting Man (1925),[12] which Lewis cited in 1962 as the second book that most influenced him.[13]

Lewis's formulation

[edit]

Lewis was an Oxford medieval literature scholar, popular writer, Christian apologist, and former atheist. He used the argument outlined below in a series of BBC radio talks later published as the book Mere Christianity. There, he states:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."[14]

Lewis, who had spoken extensively on Christianity to Royal Air Force personnel, was aware that many ordinary people did not believe Jesus was God but saw him rather as "a 'great human teacher' who was deified by his superstitious followers"; his argument is intended to overcome this.[1] It is based on a traditional assumption that, in his words and deeds, Jesus was asserting a claim to be God. For example, in Mere Christianity, Lewis refers to what he says are Jesus's claims:

  • to have authority to forgive sins—behaving as if "He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences"[15]
  • to have always existed; and
  • to intend to come back to judge the world at the end of time.[15]

Lewis implies that these amount to a claim to be God and argues that they logically exclude the possibility that Jesus was merely "a great moral teacher", because he believes no ordinary human making such claims could possibly be rationally or morally reliable. Elsewhere, he refers to this argument as "the aut Deus aut malus homo" ("either God or a bad man"),[16] a reference to an earlier version of the argument used by Henry Parry Liddon in his 1866 Bampton Lectures, in which Liddon argued for the divinity of Jesus based on a number of grounds, including the claims he believed Jesus made.[17]

In Narnia

[edit]

A version of this argument appears in Lewis's fantasy novel The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. When Lucy and Edmund return from Narnia (her second visit and his first), Edmund tells Peter and Susan that he was playing along with Lucy and pretending they went to Narnia. Peter and Susan believe Edmund and are worried that Lucy might be mentally ill, so they seek out the Professor whose house they are living in. After listening to them explain the situation and asking them some questions, he responds:

"'Logic!' said the Professor half to himself. 'Why don't they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn't tell lies and it is obvious she is not mad. For the moment then, and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume she is telling the truth.'"[18]

Influence

[edit]

Christian

[edit]

The trilemma has continued to be used in Christian apologetics since Lewis, notably by writers like Josh McDowell. Philosopher Peter Kreeft describes the trilemma as "the most important argument in Christian apologetics",[19] and it forms a major part of the first talk in the Alpha Course and the book based on it, Questions of Life by Nicky Gumbel, an English Anglican priest. Ronald Reagan used this argument in 1978, in a written reply to a liberal Methodist minister who said that he did not believe Jesus was the son of God.[20] A variant has also been quoted by Bono.[21] The Lewis version was cited by Charles Colson as the basis of his conversion to Christianity.[22] Stephen Davis, a supporter of Lewis and of this argument,[23] argues that it can show belief in the incarnation as rational.[24] The biblical scholar Bruce M. Metzger argued: "It has often been pointed out that Jesus' claim to be the only Son of God is either true or false. If it is false, he either knew the claim was false or he did not know that it was false. In the former case (2) he was a liar; in the latter case (3) he was a lunatic. No other conclusion beside these three is possible."[25]

Non-Christian

[edit]

The atheist writer Christopher Hitchens accepts Lewis's analysis of the options but reaches the opposite conclusion that Jesus was not good. He writes: "I am bound to say that Lewis is more honest here. Absent a direct line to the Almighty and a conviction that the last days are upon us, how is it 'moral' ... to claim a monopoly on access to heaven, or to threaten waverers with everlasting fire, let alone to condemn fig trees and persuade devils to infest the bodies of pigs? Such a person if not divine would be a sorcerer and a fanatic."[26]

Criticism

[edit]

Writing of the argument's "almost total absence from discussions about the status of Jesus by professional theologians and biblical scholars",[27] Stephen T. Davis comments that it is "often severely criticized, both by people who do and by people who do not believe in the divinity of Jesus".[28]

Jesus' claims to divinity

[edit]

The argument relies on the assumption that Jesus claimed to be God,[29] something that most biblical scholars and historians do not believe to be true.[2][3] A frequent criticism is that Lewis's trilemma depends on the veracity of the scriptural accounts of Jesus's statements and miracles.[30] The trilemma rests on the interpretation of New Testament authors' depiction of the life of Jesus; a widespread objection is that the statements by Jesus recorded in the Gospels are being misinterpreted, and do not constitute claims to divinity.[28] According to the biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman, it is historically inaccurate that Jesus called himself God, so Lewis's premise of accepting that very claim is problematic. Ehrman stated that it is a mere legend that the historical Jesus called himself God, and that this was unknown to Lewis since he never was a professional Bible scholar.[31][32]

In Honest to God, John A. T. Robinson, then Bishop of Woolwich, criticizes Lewis's approach, questioning the idea that Jesus intended to claim divinity: "It is, indeed, an open question whether Jesus claimed to be Son of God, let alone God".[33] John Hick, writing in 1993, argued that this "once popular form of apologetic" was ruled out by changes in New Testament studies, citing "broad agreement" that scholars do not today support the view that Jesus claimed to be God, quoting as examples Michael Ramsey (1980), C. F. D. Moule (1977), James Dunn (1980), Brian Hebblethwaite (1985), and David Brown (1985).[2] Larry Hurtado, who argues that the followers of Jesus within a very short period developed an exceedingly high level of devotional reverence to Jesus, at the same time says that there is no evidence that Jesus himself demanded or received such cultic reverence.[29][34] According to Gerd Lüdemann, the broad consensus among modern New Testament scholars is that the proclamation of the divinity of Jesus was a development within the earliest Christian communities.[35]

Unsound logical form

[edit]

Another criticism raised is that Lewis is creating a false trilemma by insisting that only three options are possible. Craig A. Evans writes that the "liar, lunatic, Lord" trilemma "makes for good alliteration, maybe even good rhetoric, but it is faulty logic". He proceeds to list several other alternatives: Jesus was Israel's messiah, simply a great prophet, or we do not really know who or what he was because the New Testament sources portray him inaccurately.[36] Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig has also criticized the argument for its incompleteness, suggesting “legend” as a fourth alternative that could be added and excluded.[37][38] Philosopher John Beversluis comments that Lewis "deprives his readers of numerous alternate interpretations of Jesus that carry with them no such odious implications".[39] Paul E. Little, in his 1967 work Know Why You Believe, expanded the argument into a tetralemma ("Lord, Liar, Lunatic or Legend"). This has also been done by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, both Saint John's Seminary professors of philosophy at Boston College, who have also suggested a pentalemma, accommodating the option that Jesus was a guru, who believed himself to be God in the sense that everything is divine.[40]

Lewis's response to the possibility that the Gospels are legends

[edit]

Lewis used his own literary expertise in a 1950 essay, "What Are We to Make of Jesus?", to disagree with the possibility that the Gospels are legends. There, Lewis writes:

"Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don't work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there is no conversation that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence."[41]

Apologetic method

[edit]

Writing from a presuppositional perspective, Richard L. Pratt Jr. has criticized the trilemma as expanded by Paul E. Little ("Lord, Liar, Lunatic or Legend") as being too reliant on human reason: "Instead of insisting on the necessity of repentance and faith as the ground for true knowledge, Little acts as if the unbeliever needs merely to be logical about Jesus' claims in order to arrive at the truth."[42]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Lewis's trilemma

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Lewis's trilemma is a Christian apologetic argument formulated by , asserting that given Jesus's claims to divinity as recorded in the , he must have been either a liar (deliberately deceiving others about his identity), a (deluded in believing himself to be God), or the Lord (truly divine as the ), thereby excluding the common view of him as simply a great moral teacher without supernatural status. The argument originates in Lewis's 1952 book Mere Christianity, which was adapted from a series of BBC radio broadcasts delivered between 1941 and 1944 during World War II, aimed at explaining basic Christian beliefs to a lay audience. In the relevant passage, Lewis writes: "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic... or else he would be the Devil of Hell... You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse." Lewis, a former atheist who converted to Christianity in 1931, developed the trilemma to challenge the selective admiration of Jesus's ethical teachings while dismissing his divine claims, emphasizing the logical inconsistency of such a position. Although often attributed solely to Lewis, the core idea has precedents in earlier Christian thought; for instance, Scottish theologian John Duncan articulated a similar in 1859, describing Jesus as either a "conscious ," deluded, or divine. Lewis's formulation gained widespread popularity, influencing modern and being popularized further by authors like in his 1972 book Evidence That Demands a , where it became known as the "Lord, Liar, or " . The trilemma's influence extends to evangelical and Catholic circles, serving as a concise tool for and debate, though it presupposes the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts of Jesus's claims. Critics, including scholars like and , argue that it commits a fallacy by overlooking options such as Jesus being a misunderstood or the divine claims being later legendary additions to the texts, rather than authentic words of the . Defenders maintain its validity as a for those already accepting Jesus's and the basic of the Gospels, while acknowledging it is not a of .

Origins and History

Pre-Lewis Developments

The roots of the trilemma argument can be traced to Enlightenment-era theological debates, where rationalist critics like challenged the historicity of ' miracles and divinity claims, prompting apologists to defend Christian by emphasizing the incompatibility of ' moral character with or . These discussions often framed ' assertions of divine authority as forcing a binary between truth and falsehood, evolving into more nuanced formulations that incorporated the possibility of mental instability. In the early 19th century, American preacher and educator Mark Hopkins advanced this line of reasoning in his Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity (1846), delivered as Lowell Institute lectures. Hopkins examined Jesus' self-claims to , arguing that such bold assertions by a figure of exemplary and wisdom could not stem from imposture or . He posed explicitly: "He must be one of three things—a bad man, or a madman, or the ." On pages 235–236, Hopkins elaborated that Jesus' humble origins and selfless benevolence rendered implausible—"nothing short of , can account for such claims"—while his consistent virtue contradicted any scheme of deception, leaving divine sonship as the only coherent explanation. This marked an early triadic structure, bridging liar-or-lord dichotomies with the option, rooted in defenses against skeptical assaults on biblical . A similar formulation appeared earlier in the work of Scottish theologian John Duncan, who in 1859 described as either a "conscious ," deluded, or divine. By the , similar ideas appeared in British writer Dorothy Sayers' theological reflections on the Gospels. In her writings, including essays accompanying her series The Man Born to Be King (1941–1942), Sayers contended that dismissing as merely a great teacher ignored the radical nature of his divine claims, which, if untrue, would render him either delusional or malevolent—options incompatible with his ethical teachings and impact. Sayers' formulation, drawn from her lay theological explorations, emphasized the dramatic tension in Christ's identity, influencing mid-century amid ongoing debates on ' . These pre-Lewis developments collectively built on Enlightenment skepticism, refining the argument into a tool for affirming Christ's uniqueness.

Lewis's Introduction

, a former atheist who converted to in 1931 after years of intellectual struggle, approached with a rational, accessible style shaped by his philosophical background and desire to engage skeptics on their own terms. This personal journey from unbelief to faith informed his efforts to defend logically, particularly during when he delivered a series of broadcasts from 1941 to 1944 aimed at bolstering and clarifying core beliefs for a diverse audience amid wartime uncertainty. The trilemma emerged in Lewis's second series of talks, titled "What Christians Believe," broadcast on the in January and February . Specifically, it was formulated in the eighth talk, "The Shocking Alternative," aired on February 1, , where Lewis adapted earlier apologetic ideas for oral delivery to reach ordinary listeners, including those with limited theological knowledge. These broadcasts built on the first series from August to October 1941, which addressed moral law and the universe's meaning, and were initially published in the UK as Broadcast Talks in by Geoffrey Bles. The 1942 talks were revised and published separately as Christian Behaviour in 1943, incorporating listener feedback for greater clarity, before the full series—including the third set from 1943 on Christian personality—were combined and expanded into Mere Christianity in 1952. This compilation, retitled from earlier American editions like The Case for Christianity (1943), allowed Lewis to refine his arguments for print, eliminating some radio-specific asides while preserving the trilemma's core structure from the original script. Lewis's wartime presentations, thus, marked his pivotal introduction of the trilemma as a tool for rational Christian defense.

The Trilemma Argument

Core Formulation

Lewis's trilemma presents a deductive argument concerning the identity of Christ, grounded in the premise that explicitly claimed divinity for himself. One such claim appears in of John, where declares, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), implying a unity of essence with . Other statements attributed to , such as his authority to forgive sins and his assertion of , similarly elevate his self-understanding beyond that of a or ethical guide. Lewis contends that these claims render it impossible to regard solely as a profound moral teacher, as such a position would ignore the radical implications of what he said. The argument's logical structure unfolds as follows: If ' claims to are true, then he is the —God incarnate. Conversely, if the claims are false, Jesus must be either a liar, intentionally misleading his followers about his nature, or a , sincerely but delusively believing himself to be divine. This excludes intermediate categories, positing that the evidence of Jesus' teachings and life compels a binary evaluation of his claims' , followed by one of two unflattering alternatives if untrue. Lewis employs rhetorical force to underscore the argument's exclusivity, rejecting any neutral or patronizing interpretation of Jesus' role. In Mere Christianity, originally adapted from his BBC wartime broadcasts, he states:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be .’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a —on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the of . You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a ; or you can fall at His feet and call Him and . But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
This formulation, by framing the options starkly, aims to compel readers to confront the theological weight of ' self-presentation without evasion.

The Three Options Explained

The liar hypothesis posits that Jesus deliberately misrepresented himself as divine, making him an impostor driven by motives such as a desire for power, influence, or self-aggrandizement. This option conflicts sharply with the ethical depth and sincerity evident in his teachings, such as the , which emphasize , truthfulness, and for others—qualities incompatible with calculated deception on the scale of claiming equality with . If Jesus were a liar, his moral instructions would undermine themselves, as a deceiver could not credibly advocate for and , rendering his entire message suspect and unworthy of the transformative influence it has exerted historically. The lunatic option suggests that Jesus was mentally unstable, suffering from delusions of grandeur akin to a megalomaniac who believes himself to be a or . Such a figure claiming divine would exhibit profound irrationality, yet Jesus demonstrated remarkable wisdom, composure, and insight throughout his ministry, as seen in his parables and responses to critics, which have inspired profound philosophical and ethical reflection for centuries. A mentally ill person could not sustain the coherent, influential teachings attributed to him, nor account for the enduring global impact of his life and words, which have shaped moral frameworks and cultural institutions. In contrast, the option affirms that was indeed divine, the , who fulfilled his claims through his moral perfection, , , and redemptive mission. This view aligns with the unparalleled ethical stature of his teachings, which exhibit a consistency and profundity suggesting insight, and explains the historical phenomenon of Christianity's spread and persistence despite . These options interconnect to exclude any neutral portrayal of Jesus as merely a wise or , as his explicit claims to —such as forgiving sins and identifying with —demand a categorical response. If he were a liar or , the falsehood or would taint all aspects of his message, discrediting even his ethical exhortations and preventing him from being regarded as a reliable guide; only as do his words and influence cohere without contradiction.

Literary Presentations

In Mere Christianity

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis presents the trilemma argument in Book 2, Chapter 3, titled "The Shocking Alternative," where it serves as a pivotal moment in his case for the of Christ by forcing readers to confront the implications of ' claims about himself. The book originated from a series of broadcasts delivered by Lewis between 1941 and 1944 during , initially published in three separate volumes—Broadcast Talks (1942), Christian Behaviour (1943), and Beyond Personality (1944)—before being revised and combined into the single volume Mere Christianity in 1952 by Geoffrey Bles in . This print edition refined the original spoken material for a reading audience, streamlining the structure, clarifying transitions between ideas, and enhancing the logical flow while preserving the conversational tone of the broadcasts. Lewis employs a rhetorical style that relies on accessible, everyday analogies to demystify the argument, such as comparing a mere human claiming divinity to "the man who says he is a poached egg," thereby illustrating the lunacy of such a assertion without divine backing. This approach makes the trilemma relatable to a broad audience, emphasizing its urgency through vivid, humorous imagery rather than abstract theology. Beyond the basic options of liar, lunatic, or , Lewis expands the discussion by highlighting the absurdities of rejecting the "" category while still , arguing that one cannot patronizingly view him as merely "a great human teacher" without addressing his explicit claims to , which would render such illogical and inconsistent. He warns against this middle ground, stating that "has not left that open to us" and did not intend to allow selective of his teachings apart from his identity. This elaboration underscores the trilemma's role in dismantling neutral or partial endorsements of , pushing toward a decisive commitment.

In The Chronicles of Narnia

In The Chronicles of Narnia, C.S. Lewis portrays Aslan, the great lion and creator of the world of Narnia, as a Christ-figure who asserts claims to kingship and divinity, echoing the divine assertions central to Lewis's trilemma as presented in Mere Christianity. Aslan is depicted as the true king of Narnia, returning to fulfill prophecies and rule justly, much like Christ's claim to be the Messiah and Son of God. A pivotal example occurs in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, where Aslan voluntarily sacrifices himself on the Stone Table to atone for Edmund's betrayal, only to be resurrected, breaking the power of death and the White Witch's rule—paralleling Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as an act of substitutionary atonement. Lewis embeds trilemma-like themes through moments where characters confront 's claims, forcing a choice between accepting him as the legitimate lord, dismissing him as a deceiver (liar), or regarding him as deranged (). In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the accuses Aslan of being a and deceiver who unlawfully challenges her self-proclaimed queenship, portraying him as a liar intent on upending the established order through false promises of spring and freedom. This accusation prompts characters like the Pevensie children to weigh the implications of Aslan's assertions, similar to the trilemma's demand to evaluate extraordinary claims. A direct parallel appears in the same novel when Professor Kirke advises Peter and about Lucy's testimony regarding Narnia: "There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth," ruling out liar or lunatic in favor of truth, thereby underscoring the rationality of accepting bold claims. Further examples illustrate the trilemma's dynamics in later installments. In , a false Aslan—actually the donkey Puzzle draped in a lion's skin, manipulated by the ape Shift—impersonates the true king to deceive Narnians into submission, embodying the "liar" option as a deliberate that merges with "" through its absurd and destructive pretensions, contrasting sharply with the authentic who reveals the and judges accordingly. This narrative device highlights the peril of rejecting the true lord in favor of impostors. In , about Aslan's reality prevails among the Old Narnians and even the Pevensies, with characters like Caspian initially doubting the lion's existence or return, treating reports of his presence as delusions or fabrications until his tangible interventions compel recognition, mirroring the trilemma's challenge to dismiss divine claims as madness or deceit. Lewis intentionally used the fantasy medium of Narnia to illustrate theological concepts like the for both children and adults, as he explained in his essays and letters that the series operates as a "supposal"—imagining how Christ might act in —to convey Christian truths imaginatively without strict . In a letter dated March 5, 1961, to Anne Jenkins, Lewis affirmed that "the whole Narnian story is about Christ," emphasizing Aslan's role in embodying divine kingship to engage readers' imaginations with the implications of such claims. Through these embeddings, Lewis makes the trilemma accessible, inviting reflection on acceptance versus rejection of a figure who demands ultimate allegiance.

Impact and Influence

In Christian Apologetics

The trilemma argument, originally formulated by , gained widespread popularity in through the work of , who expanded on it in his 1972 book Evidence That Demands a Verdict. McDowell coined the memorable phrase "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" to encapsulate the options, presenting the argument as a logical defense of ' divinity against claims that he was merely a great moral teacher. This phrasing made the trilemma more accessible for lay audiences and solidified its role in evangelical , where it has been used to challenge about Christ's unique claims. In evangelical circles, the trilemma has been integrated into sermons, books, and public debates to affirm the exclusivity of ' identity. For instance, apologist frequently drew on Lewis's framework in his lectures and writings to underscore the incompatibility of viewing as a wise ethicist without accepting his divine assertions. This approach has defended Christ's in interfaith dialogues and campus outreaches, emphasizing the trilemma's rhetorical power in contrasting Christian claims with other worldviews. The argument has received endorsements from both Catholic and Protestant theologians, who appreciate its simplicity in highlighting the implications of ' self-claims. Catholic writers, such as those at , have praised the trilemma for demonstrating that alternatives to divinity undermine ' moral authority, aligning it with traditional . Protestant thinkers, including those from Stand to Reason, have similarly upheld it as a foundational tool in , reinforcing . Recent analyses in the 2020s continue to affirm the trilemma's enduring value for its logical clarity and evangelistic impact. Apologists like Jonathan McLatchie have revived the argument in contemporary contexts, arguing it effectively counters modern by forcing engagement with historical claims about . These discussions highlight the trilemma's adaptability while maintaining its core structure as a succinct apologetic device. Modern variations of the in often incorporate a fourth option—""—to address potential mythological embellishments in accounts, transforming it into a quadrilemma. Proponents like those at Reasonable Faith acknowledge this expansion but argue that historical evidence for the Gospels' reliability preserves the original three options as the primary alternatives. Despite this addition, the core retains its prominence, as expansions typically serve to refute the rather than supplant Lewis's formulation. The themes of Lewis's trilemma have permeated popular media through adaptations of his works, particularly the film series (2005–2010), where Aslan's portrayal as a divine figure echoes the argument's exploration of Christ's claims, introducing these ideas to global audiences beyond literary readers. Documentaries on Lewis, such as those profiling his life and writings, often reference the as a cornerstone of his apologetic legacy, highlighting its cultural resonance in discussions of and reason. In , the continues to inspire accessible works for general audiences, exemplified by Andrew Swafford's 2025 book Lunatic, Liar, or Lord: Unveiling the Truth of Catholicism with C. S. Lewis's , which expands Lewis's argument to examine Catholic doctrine through a modern lens. Beyond theological circles, the serves as a cultural touchstone in non-Christian contexts, appearing in podcasts that dissect its logical structure and in atheist critiques, such as Richard Carrier's 2022 analysis labeling it a "false trichotomy" for overlooking options like myth or mistake. Online, the has seen viral dissemination since the via memes and discussions on platforms like and , where it is frequently simplified, parodied, or debated in short-form videos and image macros, amplifying its reach in secular digital discourse.

Criticisms and Responses

Challenges to Jesus' Claims

Scholars in research, such as , argue that the explicit claims of divinity attributed to in the Gospel of John—such as the "I am" statements (e.g., "I am the bread of life" in :35)—represent later theological developments by the rather than historical utterances by himself. These sayings, which equate directly with God, appear only in John, dated to around 90-100 CE, while the earlier (Mark, Matthew, and Luke, composed 70-90 CE) lack such overt declarations and instead portray emphasizing his role as a messenger or without personal deification. contends that these Johannine elements reflect evolving in , influenced by Greco-Roman ideas of divine men, rather than preserving authentic first-century Jewish teachings from . Alternative interpretations within historical Jesus scholarship portray Jesus primarily as an apocalyptic prophet or itinerant rabbi who did not claim personal divinity but instead proclaimed the imminent kingdom of as a collective eschatological event. For instance, scholars like Ehrman and Dale C. Allison describe Jesus as a Jewish apocalypticist predicting divine intervention to restore , with his authority derived from prophetic calling rather than inherent godhood. The frequent use of "Son of Man" in the Synoptics (e.g., Mark 2:10) is often interpreted not as a self-claim to divinity but as a reference to the figure in :13-14, symbolizing either the suffering righteous or a collective representation of faithful , as argued by scholars like Geza and Maurice Casey. This view aligns with the consensus that Jesus' ministry focused on ethical teachings, healings, and warnings of judgment, positioning him as a reformer within without assertions of equality with . In the context of first-century Judaism, any messianic or authoritative claims by Jesus would have been understood as metaphorical or as fulfilling prophetic roles, not as equating him to Yahweh, given the strict monotheism of the period. Jewish expectations of the Messiah, as outlined in texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls and prophetic writings, generally envisioned a human descendant of David who would restore the kingdom politically and spiritually, without divine incarnation or worship as God. Pre-Christian Jewish literature, including Enochic traditions, features exalted figures like the Son of Man or elect one, but these are typically angelic or idealized human agents subordinate to God, not co-equal deities. Thus, actions like forgiving sins (Mark 2:5-12) were likely seen by contemporaries as delegated prophetic authority, similar to figures like Elijah, rather than a blasphemous assertion of divine prerogative. These challenges undermine the foundational premise of Lewis's by questioning whether Jesus ever made the explicit claims that force the liar, lunatic, or Lord dilemma. If historical evidence suggests Jesus presented himself as or without deific assertions, then options like "misunderstood " or "inspired teacher" become viable, collapsing the into a false that assumes later Christian interpretations as historical fact. This critique, prominent in works by Ehrman and others, shifts the discussion from theological evaluation to historical reconstruction, allowing Jesus to be admired as a moral exemplar without requiring acceptance of his lordship.

Logical and Methodological Critiques

Critics have argued that Lewis's trilemma presents a false trichotomy by omitting viable alternatives to the three options of , liar, or , particularly the possibility that the accounts of 's claims were later legends or exaggerations developed by his followers. For instance, historian contends that the stories in the Gospels could represent mythic embellishments over time, where was neither intentionally deceptive nor delusional, but rather the subject of post-mortem that attributed divine claims to him retroactively. This "legend" option, Carrier argues, aligns with patterns in ancient religious literature and undermines the trilemma's exhaustive structure, as it allows for to have been a whose teachings were mythologized without implying personal fault or divinity. Further critiques highlight the trilemma's unsound due to non-exhaustive categories, excluding possibilities such as Jesus being sincerely mistaken about his identity or acting as a cultural accommodator who used hyperbolic language common in Jewish apocalyptic rhetoric without literal intent to claim deity. Apologist , in analyzing the argument, notes that the premise restricting options to liar or overlooks these nuances, rendering the invalid because it fails to account for sincere error or contextual interpretation of Jesus's words. Such omissions create a forced choice that favors the desired conclusion without rigorously demonstrating why alternatives like a well-meaning but errant are impossible. Methodologically, the trilemma has been faulted for by presupposing the historical reliability of accounts, which form the basis for attributing divine claims to , while using those claims to argue for their own veracity. New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman describes this as a circular structure, where Lewis tacitly assumes the Gospels accurately report words to narrow the interpretive options, bypassing independent evidence for their . Additionally, the argument relies more on rhetorical force—evoking emotional aversion to labeling a "liar" or "lunatic"—than on empirical assessment of the texts' origins or actual statements, prioritizing persuasive appeal over methodical historical analysis. In response, Lewis partially acknowledged the legend possibility but dismissed it as improbable due to the early attestation of the Gospel narratives, arguing that as a literary historian, he found them unlike later fabricated myths in the region. In , he conceded that legends could theoretically explain such claims but maintained that the rapid spread and eyewitness elements in the accounts made wholesale invention unlikely, thereby reinforcing the trilemma's applicability to the historical Jesus.

References

  1. https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/fellows/is-c-s-lewis-trilemma-a-good-argument-for-the-divinity-of-christ/
  2. https://pillars.taylor.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1246&context=inklings_forever
  3. http://www.globaljournalct.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Donald-Williams-C.-S.-Lewis-Trilemma.pdf
  4. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/is-c-s-lewiss-liar-lord-or-lunatic-argument-unsound/
  5. https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/blog/new-edition-evidence-demands-verdict-by-josh-sean-mcdowell/
  6. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/historical-jesus/the-problem-of-miracles-a-historical-and-philosophical-perspective
  7. https://ia804604.us.archive.org/27/items/evidencesofchr00hopk/evidencesofchr00hopk.pdf
  8. https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/commentary/how-c-s-lewis-accepted-christianity
  9. https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/a-biography-of-mere-christianity/
  10. https://essentialcslewis.com/2014/02/01/retrospect-february-1st-9th/
  11. https://www.discovery.org/a/519/
  12. https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/reflections-september-2004/
  13. https://archive.org/stream/MereChristianityCSL/MereChristianity_CSL_djvu.txt
  14. https://www.academia.edu/29346142/Re_Examining_Lewis_Trilemma
  15. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691153735/c-s-lewiss-mere-christianity
  16. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6979-i-am-trying-here-to-prevent-anyone-saying-the-really
  17. https://www.pintswithjack.com/lewis-trilemma-another-option/
  18. https://www.jlneyhart.com/2014/10/c-s-lewis-and-trilemma-argument-in-mere.html
  19. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9089571-we-were-afraid-it-mightn-t-even-be-lying-said-susan
  20. https://www.litcharts.com/lit/the-last-battle/themes/belief-deception-and-false-prophets
  21. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/thinking-about-aslan-and-jesus-with-c-s-lewis/
  22. https://allacin.blogspot.com/2014/08/cs-lewiss-1-statement-summary-of-each.html
  23. https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict-Life-Changing/dp/1401676707
  24. https://evidenceunseen.com/theology/christ/lord-liar-lunatic-or-legend
  25. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-real-jesus-and-the-two-impostors
  26. https://jonathanmclatchie.com/liar-lunatic-or-lord-reviving-c-s-lewis-trilemma/
  27. https://seedbed.com/was-jesus-a-liar-lunatic-lord-or-legend/
  28. https://effectualgrace.com/2014/05/08/jesus-as-legend/
  29. https://www.catholic365.com/article/38873/narnia-and-cs-lewis-trilemma.html
  30. https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections/three-c-s-lewis-documentaries-to-watch-in-the-new-year
  31. https://www.avemariapress.com/products/lunatic-liar-or-lord
  32. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/20130
  33. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAuNgR8UBcI
  34. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/u5ryq7/lewiss_trilemma_makes_no_sense/
  35. https://ehrmanblog.org/ehrman-bass-debate-did-the-historical-jesus-claim-to-be-divine/
  36. https://vridar.org/2014/07/08/the-evolution-of-the-son-of-man-the-human-divine-messiah/
  37. https://historyforatheists.com/2018/12/jesus-apocalyptic-prophet/
  38. https://www.christian-thinktank.com/messiah.html
  39. https://ehrmanblog.org/if-jesus-wasnt-god-was-he-necessarily-either-a-calloused-liar-or-a-raving-lunatic/
  40. https://ehrmanblog.org/the-problem-with-liar-lunatic-or-lord-for-members/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.