1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

CS Lewis is a bridge to Romanism

Discussion in 'Ecumenism & Roman Catholicism' started by micah719, Aug 31, 2011.

  1. micah719

    micah719 an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40

  2. Hannah

    Hannah Well-Known Member

    I have only read CS Lewis's Narnia Series.

    I am not able to comment at all on his Christian writings or any of sermons if they are recorded in print as I have never read any of them.

    Never had the need to read any CS Lewis Christian teachings but I like his science fiction novels as just that Science Fiction.


    It is one thing to Correct somebody with Love another thing to insult someone to prove you are RIGHT.

    (What I am trying to do here is to give you some insight into why most people will not bother to read your article and why. In the hope next time you might phrase your invitation to read some good exposing article you want to share with others in a less offensive way.)

    First of all you have started your invitation by insulting and belittling the people you want to warn of the posion of CS Lewis.

    The way you have said this makes it look like you only want to be CORRECT. This is not a loving statement and it shows little respect, no real concern for your brothers or sisters in Christ.

    I do want to be warned of teaching that is not correct, however I don't need to be insulted first. You admit your motive is to actually offend here.

    When you correct a brother and sister in Christ your motive should not be to say "I'm right & your wrong". It should be out of genuine love.

    All you have achieved is to turn people off immediately. If you want people to actually listen to what you have to say then do not put up any barriers for them to Hear you. Let the Truth of your Evidence be the offence.

    You might not think so but you have said the equivalent of "Listen up stupid heads and let me tell you....", your words have the same effect and then you expect people to happily receive what you want to share with them?

    Any anger you get back on this thread it will not be based solely on the article attached but the personal insult you chose to start with. People don't like to be treated in that way and the Bible clearly teaches us not to use disrepect when we choose to Correct or Teach from the Word of God.

    At this point nobody has bitten your head off but you got in first and took a good swipe. Think about what I have shared. None of us like to have people bite our heads off for giving them the Truth about men or women they have held in high esteem but have obvious faults. Even when they do reply in a nasty way we still have to watch how we respond and you should be praying and asking God how best to do that in a way that glorifies Him.

    I won't go on I think I have said enough. I don't write this to offend but to ask you to think more carefully how you invite people to hear what you have to say.
  3. micah719

    micah719 an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40

    I wrote what I did because this isn't the first time I've posted about Lewis, and the previous times my warnings were brushed off as nonsense. "It tastes fine, I'll keep drinking it, I see no problem, how dare you meddle in my tipples, you're paranoid". It isn't about being right or wrong, I have no desire to be right, I want to help brethren that are drinking from a poisoned well that happens to taste good and be popular. The approach I took was calculated precisely to cut through apathy and lethargy and forestall the brushoffs. My motive is as inscrutable to you as is my heart, but thank you for your concern. This isn't a case of an unbeliever asking me about the reason for my faith, it is one of warning believers of a wolf, so the Scripture you posted is out of context. It isn't a minor matter, nor is it one of mere faults in Lewis. Whatever I do in this matter I will get a slap or two. In my opinion it's worth it. Thanks for the bump, enjoy the article. Love warns.

  4. Hannah

    Hannah Well-Known Member

    Makes no difference how you were treated before by OTHERS over this topic! You don't treat a different group of people in an insulting fashion because somebody else gave you a hard time. That is like kicking your dog at the end of a bad day!

    Neither Jesus nor the Apostles Paul or Peter gave new crowd of people a what-for because they were mistreated elsewhere.

    Not just concerned but you are an ambassador of God when you post on a forum in the public eyes like this one. This isn't a good witness for the Lord.

    Your attitude is not good and I'm sorry you don't get the what the scriptures of God teach us about how to correct others. Whatever you do for the Lord is should be with the right attitude.

    There have been plenty of times I have been served up hateful and very strongly worded responses by other members on this forum and elsewhere. I have had to use my self-control and be patient and gentle to write an appropriate response. I am not naturally like that it took time for the Lord to develop that in me as I come from a Slavic background where losing your temper at the drop of a hat is common practice.

    It is not a good witness for God to do so and it isn't appropriate for a Child of God who is trying to teach others .

    God and Jesus have great patience with us and when they discipline us it is out of TRUE love. A love of a parent for their child. Their instruction is proper and gentle and they only give us a punishment when appropriate not because they are mad at other people.

    That is what our service to God should be like. There are many other scriptures that clearly preach how we should care for our Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

    I'm sorry but I do not see that here and it is a disappointment that you could not understand my previous post where I had given you similar scriptures.

    Again you don't thump someone else because another person has made you angry. I am the mother of four grown adults and this is a lessson I taught my children when growing up, "you dn't lash out at one of your siblings because someone else has made you mad".

    No one here has mistreated you and yet you think it is OK to be offensive and your excuse is "because others have been rude and hateful in their responses to me elsewhere". That excuse doesn't wash with me.

    I have tried to show you what God requires of us when we serve Him. There is nothing more I can do.

    Being a Christian is more than just knowing who is teaching wrong doctrine. There is far more required of us and how we act and speak and serve the Lord is very important. Through our actions and behaviour we witness Jesus not just warning people of a possible heretic in the ranks.

    I am very aware of this following scripture and I will say I certainly would love to take back somethings I have said in the past but I cannot. However the longer I walk with the Lord the more aware I am of this verse and it's meaning.

    What we speak and how we speak it is being constantly heard by God. Even though we have Jesus blood to cover our sins do not think they are not grevious to the Lord. None of us are perfect but we need to be mindful we need to change our attitudes and motives and speech to glorify the Lord.

    Our life of service to God will be tested. I don't want rewards. I do want to pass the test and I do want to glorify God now, today as much as my sinful nature will allow. Which means allowing God to teach me His ways and enable me to be obedient and serve Him the way He would want me to serve Him and not in my way (which is stained by my sinful nature).
  5. micah719

    micah719 an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40

    If you will look again at my OP you should notice to whom it was written. If that appears to you to be a blanket slap at any and all that read it, you are mistaken. It is not my intention to offend, and if I have offended you I repent and apologise and beg forgivenness.

    As I wrote in the OP, I am aware that pointing out people's idols would be a cause of offense, and indicated that their cry of indignation at my interference in their pleasure was in my opinion worth it. If however you are offended for the reason I gave, and this is your way of expressing it, then I've already covered it. I don't want to write a thousand word essay to express what I can in a couple of lines. The danger of misunderstanding is too great. Evidently the volume of words is immaterial, as whatever I say and in whatever manner is sure to offend someone, justified or not. There is altogether too much sweet-talk these days, concealing hatred and lies, if one has the ability to see the poison amongst the fluff. I've got enough wounds from the tolerance and kumbayah brigade to know that taking a stand for truth is going to hurt. It seems one can say and do anything these days, as long as one does it nicely it doesn't matter if the words and deeds are rank heresy. I say enough with the flattering smooth speech; speak plainly, ignore the smokescreens and red herrings, and cut to the core of the matter.

    Whether or not people continue to revere Lewis, and continue to use his deceptive and dangerous writings, is up to them. It grieves me, but I've done what I can to point out the danger.
  6. micah719

    micah719 an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40

    Like biting on a piece of aluminium foil, I see the name Lewis mentioned favourably all too often by otherwise sound believers. By two or three witnesses a thing is proven...

    :lobster posted in full from:
    C.S. Lewis


    Updated and enlarged August 12, 2008 (first published July 1, 2000) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

    The late British author C.S. (Clive Staples) Lewis (1898-1963), who was known as Jack, is extremely popular with evangelicals today. Most Christian bookstores feature the writings of Lewis without a word of warning.

    A Christianity Today reader’s poll in 1998 rated Lewis the most influential evangelical writer. The December 2005 edition of Christianity Today features C.S. Lewis on the cover and almost every article is devoted to the man, including the effusive cover story entitled, “C.S. Lewis Superstar.” In an article commemorating the 100th anniversary of Lewis’s birth, J.I. Packer called him “our patron saint” and said that Lewis ”has come to be the Aquinas, the Augustine, and the Aesop of contemporary Evangelicalism” (“Still Surprised by Lewis,” Christianity Today, Sept. 7, 1998).

    Though Lewis died in 1963, sales of his books had risen to two million a year by 1977 and have increased 125% since 2001.

    In its April 23, 2001, issue, Christianity Today again praised C.S. Lewis in an article titled “Myth Matters.” Lewis, called “the 20th century’s greatest Christian apologist,” wrote several mythical works, such as The Chronicles of Narnia, which Christianity Today recommends in the most glowing terms, claiming that “Christ came not to put an end to myth but to take all that is most essential in the myth up into himself and make it real.” I don’t know what to say to this except that it is complete nonsense. In his Chronicles, Lewis depicts Jesus Christ as a lion named Aslan who is slain on a stone table. Christianity Today says, “In Aslan, Christ is made tangible, knowable, real.” As if we can know Jesus Christ best through a fable that is vaguely and inaccurately based on biblical themes and intermingled with paganism.


    Was C.S. Lewis a strong Bible believer? By no means, as even Christianity Today admits. “Clive Staples Lewis was anything but a classic evangelical, socially or theologically. He smoked cigarettes and a pipe, and he regularly visited pubs to drink beer with friends. Though he shared basic Christian beliefs with evangelicals, he didn’t subscribe to biblical inerrancy or penal substitution. He believed in purgatory and baptismal regeneration” (“C.S. Lewis Superstar,” Christianity Today, Dec. 2005).

    Lewis believed in prayers for the dead. In Letters to Malcolm, he wrote, “Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter men. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden” (p. 109). He believed in purgatory. In Letters to Malcolm, he wrote” “I believe in Purgatory. ... The right view returns magnificently in Newman’s Dream. There if I remember rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer ‘with its darkness to affront that light’. ... Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they?” (pp. 110-111). Lewis confessed his sins regularly to a priest and was given the Catholic sacrament of last rites on July 16, 1963 (Roger Lancelyn Green and Walter Hooper, C.S. Lewis: A Biography, 1974, pp. 198, 301). Lewis denied the total depravity of man and the substitutionary blood atonement of Christ. He believed in theistic evolution and rejected the Bible as the infallible Word of God. He taught that hell is a state of mind: “And every state of mind, left to itself, every shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind--is, in the end, Hell” (Lewis, The Great Divorce, p. 65). D. Martin Lloyd-Jones warned that C.S. Lewis had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement (Christianity Today, Dec. 20, 1963). In a letter to the editor of Christianity Today, Feb. 28, 1964, Dr. W. Wesley Shrader, First Baptist Church, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, warned that “C.S. Lewis ... would never embrace the (literal-infallible) view of the Bible” (F.B.F. News Bulletin, Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, March 4, 1984).

    Lewis lived for 30 years with Janie Moore, a woman 25 years his senior to whom he was not married. The relationship with the married woman began when Lewis was still a student at Oxford. Moore was separated from her husband. Lewis confessed to his brother Arthur that he was in love with Mrs. Moore, the mother of one of his friends who was killed in World War I. The relationship was definitely sexual in nature. See Alan Jacobs, The Narnian: The Life and Imagination of C.S. Lewis, pp. 82, 94. At age 58, Lewis married Joy Gresham, an American woman who pursued a relationship with Lewis even while she was still married to another man. According to two of Lewis’s friends, Gresham’s husband divorced her on the grounds of desertion (Roger Lancelyn Green & Walter Hooper, Light on C.S. Lewis), though he, in turn, married Joy’s cousin.

    In the book A Severe Mercy by Sheldon VanAuken, a personal letter is reproduced on page 191 in which Lewis suggests to VanAuken that upon his next visit to England that the two of them “must have some good, long talks together and perhaps we shall both get high.” We have no way to know exactly what this means, but we do know that Lewis drank beer, wine, and whiskey on a daily basis.

    Lewis never gave up his unholy fascination with paganism. On a visit to Greece with his wife in 1960, Lewis made the following strange, unbiblical statement:

    “I had some ado to prevent Joy (and myself) from lapsing into paganism in Attica! AT DAPHNI IT WAS HARD NOT TO PRAY TO APOLLO THE HEALER. BUT SOMEHOW ONE DIDN’T FEEL IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY WRONG--WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN ADDRESSING CHRIST SUB SPECIE APOLLONIUS” (C.S. Lewis to Chad Walsh, May 23, 1960, cited from George Sayer, Jack: A Life of C.S. Lewis, 1994, p. 378).

    What a blasphemous statement! Christ is not worshipped under the image of pagan gods. And we must remember that this was written at the end of Lewis’ life, and long after his “conversion” to Christ.

    Lewis claimed that followers of pagan religions can be saved without personal faith in Jesus Christ: “But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. ... There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position” (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, HarperSanFrancisco edition, 2001, pp. 64, 208, 209).

    Lewis believed that Jonah and Job were not historical books. In his article “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism,” Lewis said: “... Jonah, a tale with as few even pretended historical attachments as Job, grotesque in incident and surely not without a distinct, though of course edifying, vein of typically Jewish humor” (“Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism,” Christian Reflections, edited by Walter Hooper, Eerdmans).


    C.S. Lewis went to some length to describe his views of salvation in Mere Christianity and in his spiritual autobiography, Surprised by Joy. In neither book did he give a clear biblical testimony of the new birth.

    As for faith in the blood of Christ, Lewis said that it is not an essential part of Christianity. He taught that it does not matter how one defines the atonement, and he himself did not believe in the substitutionary blood atonement. In Mere Christianity he made the following statement:

    “You can say that Christ died for our sins. You may say that the Father has forgiven us because Christ has done for us what we ought to have done. You may say that we are washed in the blood of the Lamb. You may say that Christ has defeated death. They are all true. IF ANY OF THEM DO NOT APPEAL TO YOU, LEAVE IT ALONE AND GET ON WITH THE FORMULA THAT DOES. And, whatever you do, do not start quarrelling with other people because they use a different formula from years” (Mere Christianity, HarperSanFrancisco edition, 2001, p. 182).

    This is rank heresy. Lewis wrongly claimed that it does not matter if a person believes that he is washed in Christ’s blood, that this is a mere “formula” that can be accepted or rejected at one’s pleasure. He said that it is just as well to believe that “the Father has forgiven us because Christ has done for us what we ought to have done.” That is a bloodless salvation through Christ’s life rather than through His Cross, which, according to the Bible is no salvation at all. The “blood” is mentioned more than 90 times in the New Testament, and that is no accident. “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). If Jesus had lived a perfect life in our place and died a bloodless death in our place, we would not be saved.

    Lewis said, “The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. ... Any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did all of this are, in my view, quite secondary...” (Mere Christianity, HarperSanFrancisco edition, 2001, pp. 54, 55, 56).

    This is unscriptural teaching. God has revealed exactly what Christ did and what the atonement means. It is not a matter of theorizing or believing one “formula” over against another. The Bible says our salvation is a matter of a propitiation, a ransom, whereby our sins were washed away by Christ’s bloody death, which was offered as a payment to satisfy God’s holy Law.

    Lewis never mentions the doctrine of propitiation, but propitiation was a necessary part of our salvation and the propitiation was made by blood. “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God” (Rom. 3:25). Propitiation means satisfaction; covering; the fulfillment of a demand. It refers to God’s estimation of Christ’s sacrifice. God is fully satisfied by what Jesus Christ did on the Cross. The penalty for His broken law by man’s sin has been fully satisfied (Rom. 3:24-25; 1 Jn. 2:2; Heb. 2:17; Isa. 5:11). The Greek word translated “propitiation” in Rom. 3:25 is also translated “mercy seat” in Heb. 9:5. The mercy seat perfectly covered the law which was contained in the Ark (Ex. 25:17, 21). This symbolizes propitiation--Christ covering the demands of God’s law. That it is the blood of Christ which satisfied this demand and put away our sins was depicted on the Day of Atonement when blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat by the high priest (Lev. 16:11-17).

    Through Christ’s blood we have eternal redemption. “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:12).

    Through Christ’s blood we can enter into the presence of God. “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus” (Heb. 10:19).

    This is not a theory or a formula. It is the Word of God, and if one does not like it or believe it, he cannot be saved.

    In Mere Christianity, Lewis claims that the Christ-life is spread to men through baptism, belief, and the Lord’s Supper. This is a false gospel of faith plus works. He says, “There are three things that spread the Christ-life to us: baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by different names--Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord’s Supper. ... I am not saying anything about which of these things is the most essential. My Methodist friend would like me to say more about belief and less (in proportion) about the other two. But I am not going into that” (Mere Christianity, p. 61). [Note that he includes the Catholic Mass in his list of the various names by which holy communion are known, failing to acknowledge to his readers that the Mass is an entirely different thing than the simple Lord’s Supper of the New Testament.]

    It is not a Methodist we should listen to but the Bible itself, and the Bible says that salvation is by the grace of Christ alone through faith in Christ alone without works, that works are important but they follow after salvation and are the product of salvation rather than the means of it. The difference between saying that salvation is by faith without works and that works follow and saying that salvation is by faith with works or faith plus works is the difference between a true gospel and a false one. “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:3-4). “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:8-10).

    I have read several of C.S. Lewis’s books and dozens of his articles and several biographies about him, and I have never seen a clear teaching on the new birth or a clear biblical testimony that he was born again. This should be cause for the deepest concern.


    In light of his lack of clear scriptural salvation testimony, his heresies, his worldliness, and the massive pagan influences in his work, why are evangelicals today so enamored with C.S. Lewis? I believe the following are some of the chief reasons:

    FIRST, NEW EVANGELICALS LOVE C.S. LEWIS BECAUSE THEY ARE CHARACTERIZED BY A PRIDE OF INTELLECT AND LEWIS WAS DEFINITELY AN INTELLECTUAL. He had almost a photographic memory and had a triple first at Oxford in Philosophy, Classics, and English. He was one of the greatest experts of that day in English literature and occupied the first Chair in Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University. Since New Evangelicals almost worship intellectualism (a spirit that the late David Otis Fuller called “scholarolatry”), it is no surprise that they would look upon the famous intellectual C.S. Lewis as a patron saint.

    SECOND, NEW EVANGELICALS LOVE C.S. LEWIS BECAUSE OF HIS ECUMENICAL THINKING AND HIS REFUSAL TO PRACTICE SEPARATION. This has been admitted by Christianity Today. “Lewis’s … concentration on the main doctrines of the church coincided with evangelicals’ concern to avoid ecclesiastical separatism” (Christianity Today, Oct. 25, 1993). CT therefore admits that C.S. Lewis is popular to Evangelicals today because, like them, he despised biblical separation.

    C.S. Lewis was, in fact, very ecumenical. The following is an overview of his ecumenical philosophy and his influence on present-day ecumenical movement:

    “Lewis was firmly ecumenical, though he distanced himself from outright liberalism. In his preface to Mere Christianity, Lewis states that his aim is to present ‘an agreed, or common, or central or mere Christianity.’ So he aims to concentrate on the doctrines that he believes are common to all forms of Christianity--including Roman Catholicism. It is no surprise that he submitted parts of the book to four clergymen for criticism--an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic! He hopes that the book will make it clear why all Christians ‘ought to be reunited,’ but warns that it should not be seen as an alternative to the creeds of existing denominations. He likens the ‘mere Christianity’ that he describes in the book to a hall from which various rooms lead off. These rooms are the various Christian traditions. And just as when you enter a house you do not stay in the hall but enter a room, so when you become a Christian you should join a particular Christian tradition. Lewis believes that it is not too important which room you enter. It will be right for some to enter the door marked ‘Roman Catholicism’ as it will for others to enter other doors. Whichever room you enter, says Lewis, the important thing is that you be convinced that it is the right one for you. And, he says, ‘When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors.’

    “Mention should also be made of Lewis’ views of the sacraments. The sacraments ‘spread the Christ life to us’ (Mere Christianity, book 2, chapter 5). In his Letters to Malcolm Lewis states that he does not want to ‘unsettle in the mind of any Christian, whatever his denomination, the concepts--for him traditional--by which he finds it profitable to represent to himself what is happening when he receives the bread and wine’ of the Lord’s Supper. What happens in the Lord’s Supper is a mystery, and so the Roman Catholic conception of the bread and wine becoming the actual body and blood of Christ might be just as valid as the Protestant view of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial (Letters to Malcolm, chapter 19). ...

    “This enigma of C.S. Lewis was no more than a slight bemusement to me until recently three things changed my bemusement into bewilderment.

    “In March 1994 the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement produced its first document. This was a programatic document entitled Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium. It was rightly said at the time that this document represented ‘a betrayal of the Reformation.’ I saw no connection between this and C.S. Lewis until a couple of years later when the symposium Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Working Towards a Common Mission was published. In his contribution to the book, Charles Colson--the Evangelical ‘prime mover’ behind ECT--tells us that C.S. Lewis was a major influence which led him to form the movement (Billy Graham was another!). In fact Colson says that Evangelicals and Catholics Together seeks to continue the legacy of C.S. Lewis by focusing on the core beliefs of all true Christians (Common Mission, p. 36). The enigma took on a more foreboding aspect.

    “The enigma darkened further when just last year (after becoming connected to the Internet at the end of 1996) I discovered, quite by accident, that C.S. Lewis is just as popular amongst Roman Catholics as he is amongst Evangelicals. Perhaps I should have known this already, but it had never struck me before.

    “The third shock came last autumn when I read that Christianity Today--reputed to be the leading evangelical magazine in the USA--had conducted a poll amongst its readers to discover whom they considered the most influential theological writers of the twentieth century. You will have already guessed that C.S. Lewis came out on top!

    “After these three things it came as no surprise to me this year to find that C.S. Lewis has exerted a major influence on the Alpha course, and that it quotes or refers to him almost ad nauseum. Could not the Alpha course be renamed the ‘Mere Christianity’ course? ...

    “In conclusion, I offer the following reflection. If it is true to say that ‘you are what you eat,’ then it is also true to say that ‘a Christian is what he hears and reads’ since this is how he gets his spiritual food. Thus if Christians are brought up on a diet of C.S. Lewis, it should not surprise us to find they are seeking ‘to continue the legacy of C.S. Lewis.’ The apostle Paul said, ‘A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump’ (Gal. 5:9--the whole passage is relevant to the present context); thus IF EVANGELICALS READ AND APPLAUD SUCH BOOKS AS MERE CHRISTIANITY IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE IF WE FIND THEM ‘WORKING TOWARDS A COMMON MISSION’ WITH THE ENEMIES OF THE GOSPEL. THE YOUNG CHRISTIAN SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT HE READS, AND THOSE IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY (PASTORS, TEACHERS, PARENTS) SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT THEY RECOMMEND OTHERS TO READ” (Dr. Tony Baxter, “The Enigma of C.S. Lewis,” CRN Journal, Winter 1998, Christian Research Network, Colchester, United Kingdom, p. 30; Baxter works for the Protestant Truth Society as a Wycliffe Preacher).

    In April 1998, Mormon professor Robert Millet spoke at Wheaton College on the topic of C.S. Lewis. In a recent issue of Christianity Today, Millet, dean of Brigham Young University, is quoted as saying that C.S. Lewis “is so well received by Latter-day Saints [Mormons] because of his broad and inclusive vision of Christianity” (John W. Kennedy, “Southern Baptists Take Up the Mormon Challenge,” Christianity Today, June 15, 1998, p. 30).

    THIRD, NEW EVANGELICALS LOVE C.S. LEWIS BECAUSE OF THEIR SHARED FASCINATION FOR OR AND SYMPATHY WITH ROME. Today’s evangelicals have given us “Evangelicals and Rome Together” and even those who do not go that far usually speak of Rome’s errors in soft, congenial terms rather than labeling it the blasphemous, antichrist institution that it is and that Protestants and Baptists of old plainly called it. As we have seen, C.S. Lewis considered the Roman Catholic Church one of the acceptable “rooms” in the house of Christianity and longed for unity between Protestantism and Romanism. Lewis believed in prayers to the dead and purgatory.

    Some of Lewis’s closest friends were Roman Catholics. J.R. Tolkien of Lord of the Rings fame is one example. Tolkien and Lewis were very close and spent countless hours together. Lewis credited Tolkien with having a large role in his “conversion.” Lewis was also heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton. When asked what Christian writers had helped him, Lewis remarked in 1963, six months before he died, “The contemporary book that has helped me the most is Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man” (God in the Dock, edited by Walter Hooper, 1970, p. 260).

    Lewis carried on a warm correspondence in Latin with Catholic priest Don Giovanni Calabria of Italy over their shared “concern for the reunification of the Christian churches” (The Narnian, Alan Jacobs, pp. 249, 250). Calabria was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1988.

    In 1943, Lewis gave a talk on “Christian Apologetics” for a group of priests in Wales (The Narnian, p. 229).

    From the 1940s to the end of his life, Lewis’s spiritual advisor was a Catholic priest named Walter Adams (The Narnian, p. 224). It was to this priest that Lewis confessed his sins.

    Roman Catholics love C.S. Lewis as much as evangelicals. His books are typically found in Catholic bookstores. Michael Coren, a Roman Catholic, wrote a biography of Lewis entitled “C.S. Lewis: The Man Who Created Narnia.” The Catholic news agency Zenit asked Coren, “What do Catholics need to know about C.S. Lewis?” He replied: “They should know he wasn’t a Catholic, but that doesn't mean he wouldn’t have become one eventually. G. K. Chesterton became a Catholic in 1922 but had really been one for 20 years. ... Lewis was born in Belfast, in sectarian Northern Ireland, so he was raised anti-Catholic like most Protestant children there. He was a man of his background but HIS VIEWS WERE VERY CATHOLIC: HE BELIEVED IN PURGATORY, BELIEVED IN THE SACRAMENTS, WENT TO CONFESSION” (“The Subtle Magic of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia: Michael Coren’s Perspective as the New Movie Looms,” Zenit, Dec. 7, 2005).

    Peter Kreeft, a convert to Rome from the Dutch Reformed denomination, says C.S. Lewis was one of the “many strands of the rope that hauled me aboard the ark”:

    “Even C. S. Lewis, the darling of Protestant Evangelicals, ‘smelled’ Catholic most of the time. ... Lewis is the only author I ever have read whom I thought I could completely trust and completely understand. But he believed in Purgatory, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and not Total Depravity. He was no Calvinist. In fact, he was a medieval” (“Hauled Aboard the Ark,” Hauled Aboard the Ark by Peter Kreeft).

    Kreeft is right. Evangelicalism’s love affair with C.S. Lewis is evidence of its deep spiritual compromise and lack of sound doctrinal discernment.

    “Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (1 Cor. 5:6)

    “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.” (1 Cor. 15:33)

    “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” 12 Tim. 3:5)

    “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17)
  7. myinnuendo999

    myinnuendo999 Well-Known Member

    I have not read any of CS Lewis' writings or books. I have watched the Chronicles of Narnia.

    Also I have heard pros and cons on whether or not CS Lewis was a Christian or not.
    I recon the best thing to do is to just leave the dead in God's hands since he does know their hearts and where they are. From reading what you've posted those statements are not very promising to say the least.

    As far as people reciting his works as Christian, I recon that's why we need to be careful and always stick with the word of God as final authority in our lives and work out our salvation with fear and trembling-Philippians 2:12. ---not work FOR but work OUT because we're already saved..:thumbup
  8. micah719

    micah719 an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40

    Whether Lewis was saved or not is not the main point. The important thing is, what are his words doing to others. He is popular and I see his work mentioned favourably often, yet I see what effect his work has. Warning about him gets me in trouble. I don't mind getting shot at by heathen, it's friendly fire that grieves me, but not as much as the pain is causes when I see brethren get mauled by that wolf and the wolves he leads them to.

    I just hope my brethren and comrades in arms are doing their bit to watch out for me in areas where I can't see the minefields and boobytraps and ambushes. Look at Lewis' associates, look at his writings with a Biblical eye, and you'll be horrified that his man's work is so widespread and so underestimated. You should be horrified, that is. If not, then I hope nasty micah with his startling directness prompted you to look again.

    Wake up, soldier! Can't you see that thin wire stretched across the path? See those little green prongs peeking out of the ground under that leaf? Did you notice all the birds go quiet just now?
  9. Hannah

    Hannah Well-Known Member

    Micha719, my posts to you were to explain that how we warn people is important. Just like CS Lewis our words here are in the public, we are seen as representatives of the Lord. We need to be sure our own words are approved by the Word of God and represent the Lord appropriately.

    When you correct someone you need to apply two important things to your words Gentleness and Respect.

    That is what I had tried to point out to you. You were not taken to task over your warning against any "Unsound teaching of C S Lewis" here by me. If you were given a hard time on a previous occassion about C S Lewis you need to forgive those people in the previous thread you mentioned and move on. The pain is obviously still there and it comes through in your words and how you approach this topic to others.

    I've tried to say this to you before. If "person A" gave you a hard time over it you cannot go over to "persons C & D" and chew them up over something "person A" did to you. It isn't right because you have then acted in anger on innocent people. So when you have a bitter attitude that is what in effect you are doing. Like the saying goes "kicking the dog when you get home", what did the poor dog do to deserve getting a kick? The poor dog was just handy for you to take your anger out on.

    So again I ask you in the Lord to try and put aside these feelings you have for those who hurt you in the past, forgive them and ask the Lord to heal you over it. If you do not it will continue to be an issue that will come out when you address this topic again with others.

    Your post may be speaking into the air but it does not bear as a good witness to the Lord.

    I hope you can understand what I am trying to convey here. No criticism here. (God knows I have been hurt myself and I have had to avoid certain topics. In my own life a while back I had to stop going to a certain Christian meeting I used to enjoy (years ago now) because of a run-in with one of the women there, I've forgiven her but I still could not deal with her smug arrogance over her supposed victory that she reminds me verbally of if we meet up and she loved to rub it in and she does it to others not just me it is her character. I'm over it now but it took a while).

    I am not saying things here to hurt you. It is an observation and I hope you will take what I have shared and think about it. For you own sake please think it over and place what I have said before the Lord in prayer. In the end you can ignore my advice here.
  10. micah719

    micah719 an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40

    Hannah, if you will look carefully again at what I wrote from the beginning, my sharpness is directed that those that take offense at my warning folks off Lewis and express that by accusing me of being unloving. That is a red herring and an unwarranted accusation. If I wanted to be unloving, all I have to do is sit back and watch as the object of my supposed hate gorges at the flyblown carcass of Lewis' putrid offering. All too often the soft warning goes unheard, or is made ineffective by clever brushoffs that the next reader adopts as his own or at least hides behind.

    Whoever reads the extensive material on Lewis and comes away unjustly resenting me has my reply to them in advance. Note that I dont condemn them, but I have been most blunt in the hope that they will be so incensed that they go back and try to argue for Lewis and paint themselves into a corner, or realise for themselves that they have been drinking from a cracked cistern and repent of it. You may regard my preemptive barrage as suppressing fire designed to get those poor souls afflicted by Lewisism to duck back into their foxhole and instead of wasting time shooting at me to consider that perhaps it is worth taking another look at what they are defending to see if it really is worth it. In view of the danger of that man's works and the footholds they have in far too many places, these stern measures are warranted.

    With regard to the Scripture you posted, notice that the folks I have been referring to as being wounded by a friend (in that their idol was wrenched from them) are not asking for the reason of my faith, they are seeking to hang onto their idol and are demanding the kisses of an enemy.

    For the rest, the ones that are a little more discerning and can see that they are not addressed by what I said, there is nothing needing to be said! Thank you for your concern and efforts, and for the opportunity to elaborate.
  11. myinnuendo999

    myinnuendo999 Well-Known Member

    Honestly, I didn't take any offense micah719. I saw you were wanting to WARN people you care about deeply

    We are going to offend people even in the body of Christ. WE don't want to but it's going to happen. God knows our hearts and we just need to all (including myself) make sure its with pure motives because we love our brothers and sisters.

    One thing I'm learning in my walk with Christ is, if I'm offended,, to go to the Lord and pray and let him show me what is wrong with ME. Many times others may clearly BE in the wrong but the LORD uses sandpaper on us to draw out some hidden bad attitudes that HE SEES we need to get right with HIM.
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2011
  12. GlennO

    GlennO Well-Known Member

    Stefan -

    We exchanged mail regarding C.S. a while back. You're a dear brother and I respect and admire your walk. IMO there are many more pressing things confronting the BOC, and for me, C.S. is well down on the list. The Roman Church is near the top for me. We're working with a dear couple we vacationed with recently to assist them in there struggle to pull the rip cord and bail from the RCC.

    Deb and I love you and you're on our list of family and friends we lift up to our ABBA each evening.
  13. micah719

    micah719 an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40

    Thank you Glenn, and Deb. May The Lord Jesus Christ bless your efforts and work through you to snatch your friends from the flames.

    It is one thing to recognise and avoid the octopus, but if you ignore its many tentacles the fight may be in vain. The romanists' influence and schemes are widespread indeed....and deception must look like truth if it is to succeed. Lest I fall into the trap myself I must strive to be exceedingly careful and ever ready to repent. I agree that Lewis is not the main priority but his popularity and the lack of warning I see about the danger he presents lead me to believe he is more dangerous than many are prepared to accept. A man with his associations and beliefs and the degree to which he is praised and welcomed by not only the Christ-hating and rejecting world but also the ecumenists and rank heretics is a worry indeed.
  14. micah719

    micah719 an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40

  15. BuzzardHut

    BuzzardHut Bird Mod

    Yes because Lewis was ecumenical and his theology liturgical.
  16. micah719

    micah719 an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40

    Yes, I'm aware of that. It was just a bit :scratch: :twitch to hear someone say they're happy about it. All the best of roman luck to you, M.
  17. BuzzardHut

    BuzzardHut Bird Mod

    Here's a raw and radical review on Lewis

  18. IamPJ

    IamPJ Well-Known Member

    Wow. And I've heard several prominent pastors quoting C.S.Lewis.
  19. BuzzardHut

    BuzzardHut Bird Mod

    Out of desperation. The UK is swamped in atheism, any mention of God is a drop of water on a dry sponge.
  20. Meg

    Meg Well-Known Member

    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...

Share This Page