CS Lewis is a bridge to Romanism

[BuzzardHut]

As a followup to some of the more cogent posts here. Ironically, the Catholic Church would have the same problem with someone professing "mere Christianity" AS LEWIS DEFINED IT. I have had Catholic theologians express the same misgivings about Lewis that some of the other posters have. So, to be very clear, although I would be very happy if every Christian in the world became a Catholic, I would never compromise a single article of my faith just to smooth over differences. This is why many of the posters on this site do NOT need to be fearful of some conspiracy to create some one world religion under the Papacy. The only Catholics any of you would want to talk to are ones like me, not some secular milquetoast who really is just some generic diest. I will not even compromise on the number of books in the Old Testament (46, not 39) even if it meant all of you joining the Catholic Church! So, remember the old Russian proverb; "the yes man is your enemy, but a FRIEND will argue with you!"

As Luther, Lewis was liturgical trapped in "stuck reformation" - someone who can't bear turning away from the smoke, robes, and candles.

Catholicism is a death lock, A one way ticket trap to hell, stay away from Romanism.

[BuzzardHut]

Well, ironically Buzzardhut, I am going to agree with you on one aspect of what you are saying. I'm not sure if it was Hillaire Belloc, or G.K. Chesterton (both Catholic apologists, and both converts from Protestantism): however, they observed that especially among Anglicans and Lutherans, there was an analogy of a man on a dock. He has one foot in the boat, and one foot on the dock. The boat begins to sail away. He wants PART of Catholicism (the boat), but he cannot bear to leave the dock (his Protestant culture, and also the good things that DO exist in his Protestant tradition). So he temporizes; not wanting to "jump" one way or another, he risks falling into the water of secularism. All of us know people in our circle of family and friends who, either out of lack of courage, or disgust, walk away from Christianity altogether. The moral of the story is...decide. Belloc and Chesterton, two of the great minds of the 20th Century, jumped into the bark of Peter...

A person who fully trusts in the shed blood of Jesus for their sin(s) and experiences their new birth in Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit realizes they have no more need for sacraments or religious good works for their salvation, they turn away from cookies, wine, robes, incense, and candles for a greater walk with God through Jesus Christ. They leave the religion of Rome for a deeper personal relationship with Jesus.

[micah719]

Paul was Apostle to the gentiles, not Peter. Peter was never in Rome. RCC is not Christianity.

[BuzzardHut]

Paul was Apostle to the gentiles, not Peter. Peter was never in Rome. RCC is not Christianity.

http://www.buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Peter.htm

[BuzzardHut]

The Sacraments http://www.buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Sacramentalism.pdf

[arapahoepark]

This discussion sounds similar to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. There is a big hype about him because he supposedly a Christian who thought it right to assassinate Hitler to save the Jews.
On these discernment websites, they kept saying what's with the Bonhoeffer hype? He was a liberal! So I looked it up and he's far worse than CS Lewis. His beliefs are so theologically liberal it's ridiculous and unfortunately my neighbor is reading his writings summed up by someone with a similar fashion Shelly Spong.
Basically, they think Son of God was a title of sorts and not literal and they we can never no his real mission, and we must learn to live moral lives as if we don't need God.
Cs lewis maybe wrong, and did say some good stuff but now there's this Bonhoeffer hype that we should also warn about that's far worse IMO

BTW, Peter was not in Rome? I thought he was, of course not the first pope (!), but as a church planter in rome.

[micah719]

Buzz' link is very good, I can only recommend you read it.

Please, the Bonhoeffer thing is for another thread, but probably forbidden as he is a darling to many, even as Lewis. The Bekennende Kirche was not against hitler for any reason other than he threatened their own power and priviledge. When he threw them a bone they took it. After the war it became the EKD which is now claw in paw with the OWG types. Personally I think he has been done an injustice but he is nonetheless dangerous enough to put in the don't touch basket...if he was a Christian then we'll see him in eternity, but while we're down here let's just leave him in peace and as far as possible, silent. Leave it to the liberals to hang their hats on his ambiguous works, there are far more solid pegs to rely on, such as Scripture. Popularity is not a measure of truth...neither are smooth words.

[mattfivefour]

Based on their profession of Christ alone as Lord and Savior, I have little doubt that both Lewis and Bonhoeffer are in Heaven, as are Luther and Calvin. Erroneous beliefs about non-soteriological doctrines do not bar us from eternal life with Christ. However, we are not to follow men, and too many, including (perhaps especially) the four aforementioned men have espoused or developed doctrines that have led many astray. We do well to look to the Bible not to man's books and to allow the Holy Spirit to lead, always comparing man's words with God's. He has given us teachers, yes, but it is our duty to prayerfully check out what we are fed before we swallow it.

[Meg]

This discussion sounds similar to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. There is a big hype about him because he supposedly a Christian who thought it right to assassinate Hitler to save the Jews.
On these discernment websites, they kept saying what's with the Bonhoeffer hype? He was a liberal! So I looked it up and he's far worse than CS Lewis. His beliefs are so theologically liberal it's ridiculous and unfortunately my neighbor is reading his writings summed up by someone with a similar fashion Shelly Spong.
Basically, they think Son of God was a title of sorts and not literal and they we can never no his real mission, and we must learn to live moral lives as if we don't need God.
Cs lewis maybe wrong, and did say some good stuff but now there's this Bonhoeffer hype that we should also warn about that's far worse IMO

BTW, Peter was not in Rome? I thought he was, of course not the first pope (!), but as a church planter in rome.

Are you reading Bonhoeffer's own writings or reading about his writings? I read the bio, then read source material by Bonhoeffer himself. There is a very big difference between Bonhoeffer and Lewis.

[king'sbloomingrose]

This explains a lot. As with some of our strongest members, I had thought Lewis to be a "good Christian", yet I found some of his writings to be disturbing. My Mom gave me a copy of Lion, Witch And Wardrobe when I was 11 or 12, and I didn't get the slightest hint of a Christian message out of that book. Quite to the contrary, that was one of the early influences that led to a grievous curiosity for hallucinogenic drugs...

Much later, a few years ago in fact, I browsed a copy of Screwtape Letters at a bookstore. I found it very disturbing, and never bothered to read more. Every time the topic of Lewis came up, I was torn by what seemed sincerity on one hand and something disturbingly suggestive of the occult on the other hand. Thank you, BuzzardHut for posting a simple, sober article on the subject of Lewis. The hysterical accusations left me cold. If there is a genuine problem, a calm statement of facts is much more productive than great howling storms of extremist hysteria...

This really explains a lot. Last year sometime, I was witnessing to a friend in Hinduism. She also around that time started reading C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia books. The result - she began to pray to Aslan, the lion in the book. It was basically her god. She said that Hinduism's gods were false. I tried to tell her that Aslan symbolized Jesus, but without much effect. Last I heard, she had gone back to Hinduism. Why on earth didn't C.S. Lewis write Jesus name in those books? My friend may have been saved by now, but I was shocked at how the book had such a pulling fascination for her. Now that I think about it, it's the same type of thing that pulled me towards Lord of the Rings and held me captive with that for awhile. The same thing that pulls readers towards the Twilight series.

[Meg]

This really explains a lot. Last year sometime, I was witnessing to a friend in Hinduism. She also around that time started reading C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia books. The result - she began to pray to Aslan, the lion in the book. It was basically her god. She said that Hinduism's gods were false. I tried to tell her that Aslan symbolized Jesus, but without much effect. Last I heard, she had gone back to Hinduism. Why on earth didn't C.S. Lewis write Jesus name in those books? My friend may have been saved by now, but I was shocked at how the book had such a pulling fascination for her. Now that I think about it, it's the same type of thing that pulled me towards Lord of the Rings and held me captive with that for awhile. The same thing that pulls readers towards the Twilight series.

I heard that Lewis was writing what he thought was innocent fiction to entertain his kids... I think it was Ben Franklin who warned that fiction was a bad idea, an opinion that would be considered uptight and overly legalistic these days... Sometimes it can be so hard to make good choices. I think Lewis meant well, but made some really bad mistakes, so I agree with Adrian that he's likely in Heaven. If he could have guessed the harm his fiction could cause, I doubt he would have written what he did.

[SteveJM]

Based on their profession of Christ alone as Lord and Savior, I have little doubt that both Lewis and Bonhoeffer are in Heaven, as are Luther and Calvin. Erroneous beliefs about non-soteriological doctrines do not bar us from eternal life with Christ. However, we are not to follow men, and too many, including (perhaps especially) the four aforementioned men have espoused or developed doctrines that have led many astray. We do well to look to the Bible not to man's books and to allow the Holy Spirit to lead, always comparing man's words with God's. He has given us teachers, yes, but it is our duty to prayerfully check out what we are fed before we swallow it.

A hearty amen to that!

[SteveJM]

http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles...ge_to_Rome.pdf

Thanks to micah719 for posting this link.

I actually have "Mere Christianity" in my library, and have read it through. I never did get into his fictional books although some may believe there is some fiction in Mere Christianity. I still agree with most of Mattfivefour's comment. As Mattfivefour has stated we must

look to the Bible not to man's books and to allow the Holy Spirit to lead, always comparing man's words with God's. He has given us teachers, yes, but it is our duty to prayerfully check out what we are fed before we swallow it.

Lewis by his own admission was not a Bible scholar. I don't believe I would call him a ravening wolf either. Was he wrong in many areas? I believe so.
Even "Bible scholars" don't agree on many things. If our salvation was conditioned on us getting everything right theologically, then I would say that Heaven would not be populated by many adult human beings. I will say, there are fundamentals of the faith, and a salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone is what I believe to be part of the fundamentals. Also lets not forget the inspired and inerrant word of God, among other things. If we don't believe in inerrancy then we have an unsure footing. Is belief in inerrancy essential for one to be saved? Show me the chapter and verse for that. For the record I do believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures in their original writings.

When we mix works in with faith, we are moving onto a foundation of sand in my opinion. I don't believe that receiving a gift is a work. I believe there are many well meaning authors, evangelists, pastors, and scholars who regrettably are in error, and have and are leading many down a wrong path. Are all of these people wolves, or are some of them simply in error? I'm not going to say who is and who is not in Heaven or Hell. That is for God to know. The quest for unity is desired by Jesus Christ, but not a unity where we find the lowest common denominator, which is the direction that Lewis and many others have taken, including people such as James Robison, and even Dr. Jack Van Impe to a degree, with his embracing the RCC. I wouldn't call Van Impe a wolf either. I'm disappointed in the direction he has taken, but he will answer to God for that. I know that he has done immeasurably more for the Kingdom of God than I have. I also know that he(Van Impe) has also led some down a wrong path. I can't think of a more difficult job, than to be a pastor/evangelist. There is such a weight of responsibility on them, for what they say and teach can have far reaching consequences, even Heaven and Hell. That's where it's very important for the pastor/evangelist, to be slow to speak and quick to listen.

It was mentioned that Lewis both smoked and drank. Well, although I do neither(and I don't because I have a scripturally based conviction against both), I'm still not going to judge someone that does. Charles Spurgeon was known to appreciate a cigar now and then. My own brother, who sings in the choir at his church and helps to clothe and feed the poor in his area, smokes. It always causes me to marvel, when I hear a morbidly obese preacher, preach on the evil of smoking and drinking. I love my brother, I hate his smoking, but I have no doubt that he is also my Christian brother. I hate alcohol and believe a strong case can be made against drinking a fermented drink. I know, however, there are many in the Church who drink. I don't understand it, but I don't question their salvation because of it.

I still believe you have done us a service in bringing to light the issues with Lewis. Some time ago, I was speaking to a pastor. I told him that I've been reading many books from Christian authors and each has a different viewpoint that permeates their writing. I told him that I was to the point that I didn't want to hear all of these conflicting voices, but rather, read my Bible, and hear just the voice of God. We as believers would do well to heed the advice of our brother, Mattfivefour, and,

do well to look to the Bible not to man's books and to allow the Holy Spirit to lead, always comparing man's words with God's.

[SteveJM]

I believe this Micah719's thread was a bit derailed early on, in my opinion, as there was some lengthy objection to his opening words. I wasn't convinced by the first post from Berean Beacon, but the Beacon made a strong case for Lewis's embracing of elements of Roman Catholicism. I've since come back to this thread and read post #6 from Micah719, and post #18 from BuzzardHut, and found them to be much more revealing. I would recommend that if anyone else missed these, to consider them. As far as Lewis goes, my allegiance is to God and his word, and no man, regardless of their story can sway me from that. As Mattfivefour has stated we must always compare man's words with God's. Truth is truth, and as there are so many issues with Lewis, I will disregard his words. Thanks again, to Micah719 and BuzzardHut for their contribution. For my part, I will have to be more diligent and in spite of distractions that sometimes occur in a thread, take care to not miss everyones contributions.

P.S. Thanks to IamPJ for reminding me of this thread.

[OliveOilMom]

I've read the Narnia books and they were ok. They weren't something that interested me so much that I'd want to read them again though. I read the Screwtape Letters about twenty years ago and even though I don't remember the actual book, I remember that I enjoyed reading it. I haven't read anything else of his.

[David T. McKee]

This is an old thread, but I am going to comment on it anyway.

In context, to be "born again," for Lewis, is somewhere down the road yet (Mere Christianity, pp.59,60). Lewis taught that a life of self-righteousness was necessary to eventually become born-again. In sharp contrast, Jesus taught that being born-again was a second birth which BEGINS the believer's life in Christ. Lewis was a very confused and doctrinally flawed man. As a consequence, Lewis is burning in Hell today and no doubt has led many people there too.


Lewis Denied a Literal Heaven

"All the scriptural imagery (harps, crowns, gold, etc.) is, of course, a merely symbolical attempt to express the inexpressible. Musical instruments are mentioned because for many people (not all) music is the thing known in the present life which most strongly suggests ecstasy and infinity. Crowns are mentioned to suggest the fact that those who are united with God in eternity share His splendor and power and joy. Gold is mentioned to suggest the timelessness of heaven (gold does not rust) and the preciousness of it" (Mere Christianity, p.106).


Lewis Denied a Literal Hell

Lewis never believed in a literal Hell, but instead believed hell is a state of mind one chooses to possess and become — he wrote:

"...every shutting-up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind is, in the end, Hell" (The Great Divorce, p. 65)

Sorry, but those so-called proof texts say nothing of the sort with respect to the conclusion that are drawn from them, especially the one with regard to where C.S. Lewis is now. Frankly sir, you have no idea where he is, and it is not up to you.

I like CS Lewis, I have read most of his stuff - and I am completely against the traditions of the Catholic church, so the original notion of this post is, I believe, bogus. It certainly had no such affect on me, and never in all my reading of Lewis have I ever thought it led that way.

I am in total disagreement with this thread and appalled by it, frankly.

-DTM

[mattfivefour]

I agree, David. I heard an interview on a local Christian radio program the other day with woman who is noted for having a powerful ministry of prayer. I was impressed by some of the things she said about prayer and how to pray, things that were definitely Scriptural. Certainly, her ministry has borne much fruit for Christ. I found it interesting to note that as an adult and young mother she had been a strong and committed atheist. But God led her to seek him after she read C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. One of Lewis's arguments that helped convince her was this:

"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 patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

So, I have great difficulty with people who want to suggest that Lewis was a false teacher. Yes, Lewis had some strange doctrinal ideas. And his old intellectual self sometimes got in the way of God's spiritual truths, leading him into potential error. But he was never intended to be a teacher. He was an atheist who came to know Jesus Christ as his Savior and, because he was a noted intellectual and author, he naturally chose to write about what he had discovered. And God has used him to lead many to His truth.

I have Mere Christianity, Miracles, and The Screwtape Letters in my library. I would not recommend his other writings to people, but I would not refrain from recommending those three. Personally, I have no doubt the man loved God, believed the truth about who Jesus is and what He did (and does), and trusted in Him alone for his salvation. We should warn people away from those few errors of Lewis's that stemmed from intellectualism and an incomplete theology, but allow those who have read Mere Christianity, for example, to be instructed by his discovery and exposition of the truth of the gospel and be encouraged by his personal faith in Christ.

[BuzzardHut]

Perhaps an easier way to understanding this dilemma is realizing:

Level 1) most religions, including liturgical, believe in God and persuading an atheist that God exists is a wonderful step within the realm of "general revelation".

Level 2) And then we move onward to "specific revelation" that the God who exists is the actual Jesus Christ who died on the cross for our sins; wonderful good news but it does not end there.

Level 3) We must delve deeper into the core of "specific revelation" with what do we do with this understanding we received?

Level 1) Is Jesus in a sacrament such as a Eucharist or water baptism or church membership and that is how we enter heaven? That is what the liturgical religions such as Orthodox, Lutheran, Catholic, and some Methodist and Presbyterians teach - corporate salvation.

Level 3) Or is a personal salvation in Jesus a personal trust in His blood atonement, absent of good works for salvation nor any sacraments. Can some fall back into the the corporal entrapments of works and sacraments? Martin Luther fell back into that; Lewis remained in the Liturgical realm; only God knows their personal salvation.

What's important is realizing a message of a liturgical or Orthodox (Level 1-2) belief may lead an atheist to belief in God but they must not stop there, most religious church members believe they are going to heaven because they feel their good works are more numerous than their bad works and they never feel the urge to enter the third realm of personal salvation.

In order to receive personal salvation in Christ one must enter Level 3, which is the distinct evangelical message, and very different in contrast with the good works and sacramental rituals of Level 1 - 2 And they must teach these distinctions as well, not just represent Level 1-2, which is all good for the atheist but not good for securing salvation which is the main important key distinction to God's evangelical salvation message and not just the religiosity of high church sacramentalism.

Does anyone recognize the dangers?

[mattfivefour]

As I said, Lewis had some strange doctrinal ideas. For example, in Mere Christianity he speaks of baptism and communion in the same breath as faith. At times he seems to confuse vicarious atonement with substitutionary atonement. Also, he was not sure that salvation required a specific formula in terms of "accepting" Christ. And he was also strongly Arminian in his concept of the security of believers.

However, having recognized all that, his stated beliefs still leave me with the impression that his Christianity was more than a mere superficial appreciation of specific revelation. For example, in his "Reflections on the Psalms" he wrote, "We (Christians) are all in the same boat. We must all pin our hopes on the mercy of God and the work of Christ, not on our own goodness." In another book he wrote, "All the initiative has been on God’s side, all has been free, unbounded grace .... Works have no merit, though of course faith, inevitably, even unconsciously, flows out into works of love at once. Man is not saved because he does works of love; he does works of love because he is saved. It is faith alone that has saved him; faith bestowed by sheer gift." And where is that faith to be placed? "We do know that no [one] can be saved except through Christ." "Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. Guilt is washed out by repentance and the blood of Christ." Therefore, I think he had the right idea. The Holy Spirit said through Paul that if we believe in our heart that God raised Christ from the dead and confess (homologeo) Jesus as Lord, that we shall be saved.

As I said, we should warn people of Lewis's faulty theology ... and I would generally hesitate to send anybody to Lewis. But if somebody has read him and been convinced by his arguments to reconsider God and His Christ, then, to my view, it is likely not being constructive to tear him down to them as far as being a Christian.

I don't know that I said that well, but I pray you understand my point. In like fashion, I understand yours and agree with the essence of all you said. It is a very good way to approach the dilemma. My only disagreement would be on whether Lewis entered that 3rd level. From some of what he has written, I suspect he did. But, again, it is not for us to decide. We shall find out, bye and bye.

God bless.

[BuzzardHut]

As I said, Lewis had some strange doctrinal ideas. For example, in Mere Christianity he speaks of baptism and communion in the same breath as faith. At times he seems to confuse vicarious atonement with substitutionary atonement. Also, he was not sure that salvation required a specific formula in terms of "accepting" Christ. And he was also strongly Arminian in his concept of the security of believers.

Confusion brings instability.

However, having recognized all that, his stated beliefs still leave me with the impression that his Christianity was more than a mere superficial appreciation of specific revelation. For example, in his "Reflections on the Psalms" he wrote, "We (Christians) are all in the same boat. We must all pin our hopes on the mercy of God and the work of Christ, not on our own goodness." In another book he wrote, "All the initiative has been on God’s side, all has been free, unbounded grace .... Works have no merit, though of course faith, inevitably, even unconsciously, flows out into works of love at once. Man is not saved because he does works of love; he does works of love because he is saved. It is faith alone that has saved him; faith bestowed by sheer gift." And where is that faith to be placed? "We do know that no [one] can be saved except through Christ." "Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. Guilt is washed out by repentance and the blood of Christ." Therefore, I think he had the right idea. The Holy Spirit said through Paul that if we believe in our heart that God raised Christ from the dead and confess (homologeo) Jesus as Lord, that we shall be saved.

Liturgical priests lift up the blood of Christ (wine) as a tangible element for spiritual healing, I call that a bait and switch,

As I said, we should warn people of Lewis's faulty theology ... and I would generally hesitate to send anybody to Lewis. But if somebody has read him and been convinced by his arguments to reconsider God and His Christ, then, to my view, it is likely not being constructive to tear him down to them as far as being a Christian.

Not tearing down the man, I'm pointing out the theological differences and only fits those who subscribe to it.

I'm just thinking of those who say they believe in the blood of Christ and picture a robed priest lifting up a golden chalice full of red wine.