# Opinions on C.S. Lewis



## FrozenChosen

I'm just going to read one chapter of [i:a419d8d37c]Mere Christianity[/i:a419d8d37c] a day till I finish it, but I was curious as to what you guys thought of Lewis. I know that our webmaster made a topic about him suggesting that you don't necessarily have to believe in the Christian God for salvation or something along those lines.

Anyways, how much do you like Lewis? On what points do you agree with him?

It's sad that a lot of people think that when they read Lewis they're reading theology...that's something I've bumped into with other people a handful of times.


----------



## Saiph

He is one of my favorites. If my opinion matters.
I have every book he wrote.


----------



## cupotea

This expose on C.S. Lewis might be worth a read. It details some of his heretical leanings towards Roman Catholicism and pantheism.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm


----------



## George Bailey

Cajun, do you endorse that &quot;Bible Discernment Ministries&quot;? They remind me of the &quot;Spiritual Warfare&quot; folks, who spend more time chasing demons than promoting God. I agree that some of the folks on their hit list are misguided at best, or Heretical at worst, but their tactics are wrong by using guilt by association and condemning by a &quot;gotcha&quot; quote, rather than looking at what doctrinal stance the person is actually taking. For example, they go after R.C. Sproul (which is fightin' words for most of the folks on this board!):flaming:for promoting &quot;psycobabble&quot;....I don't think so, Tim!
&lt;end rant&gt;


----------



## Bryan

Ya, BDM is a horrid site that twists facts. I agree whole heartily with Phil Johnson when he says; 

&quot;You'll find nothing biblical here and precious little that has anything to do with true discernment. As for &quot;ministry,&quot; Rick Miesel is a classic theological Ishmael-a wild man whose hand is against every man (cf. Genesis 16:12). His only &quot;ministry&quot; is declaring well-known Bible teachers heretics. And to paraphrase something a famous book critic once said, The material at this site is both good and original. Unfortunately, the stuff that is good is not original, and the stuff that is original is not good. Miesel simply collates everything he can find that is critical of well-known Christian leaders and compiles &quot;expos&egrave;s.&quot; Some of this material is legitimate, but some is incredibly picayune. Much of it is nothing more than the spreading of gossip-and a lot is grossly inaccurate. Our advice is to use whatever you find here with the utmost caution; Mr. Miesel himself is not very trustworthy.&quot;



That said Lewis's theology was far from perfect., but hey so is mine right now 

I like to read him, I think many of his writtings can be very beneficial. I just bought Mere Christainty a few weeks back so I would have a copy of my own (I've read it before) since it comes up so much in discussions. I do with him like I do with anyone I read. Test his writings by the fire of the bible, hold to whats good throw out whats bad. There is a lot that makes it through the fire in his writtings, not all but enough to make it worth reading In my humble opinion 

Bryan
SDG


----------



## mjbee

I ain't sayin' NUFFIN! I think the gentlemanly scholars have already said it!


----------



## FrozenChosen

Thanks for the responses.

I've read [i:3138f2d16a]Screwtape Letters[/i:3138f2d16a] a couple times before, and I think it's a good thing to remind us that there is such a thing as spiritual warfare and that demons do exist.

It's hard to think such things in a &quot;rational&quot; world, but it's a good reminder to have.


----------



## Irishcat922

I have always loved Lewis. His book the problem with pain was helpful to me at some very critical times in my life.:book:


----------



## Christopher

I have read a few of his works but this last month I had a birthday and ended up with most of this writen works sitting on my self! Can we increase birthdays to twice a year?


----------



## fredtgreco

Lewis is the perfect example of reading with discernment. He is perhaps one of the best [i:f45451d5c7]writers[/i:f45451d5c7] ever, one of the best Christian writres for beginning believers or inquirers, and yet not without his problems.

The [i:f45451d5c7]Chronicles of Narnia[/i:f45451d5c7] are among the best of children's books, and yet Lewis is completely unbiblical in his treatment of the followers of Tash at the end of [u:f45451d5c7]The Last Battle[/u:f45451d5c7]. Does that alone mean that he should not be read at all? I don't think that is the answer. It just means, for example, taht as we read that to our children, we need to be aware of the issue and gently explain to them that is not enough to be &quot;moral&quot; or to think the best of Allah or Buddha. We must believe on Jesus Christ. But we should not make that an occasion for them to denigrate Lewis.

His [i:f45451d5c7]Four Loves[/i:f45451d5c7] is excellent. The [i:f45451d5c7]Abolition of Man[/i:f45451d5c7] is still perhaps the best indictment of modern thinking written. And the [i:f45451d5c7]Space Triology[/i:f45451d5c7] is worth reading several times.

Men are complex. Lewis is not worth the subject of a hagiography, but he is well worth reading and studying. (But then again, so are Cicero and Plato, and they are outright pagans)


----------



## Irishcat922

I have read quite a few of his books and I don't read Lewis for Theology, but rather for entertainment and or practical living. I read the Lion the witch and the wardrobe to my kids when they were younger, and they loved it We can't wait for the Disney movie I hope they do it Justice.


----------



## Augusta

I am currently reading Mere Christianity. He is really good at explaining things in such a way that people who didn't go to seminary can understand it.  Hubby read all of the Chronicles to the kids recently also. They loved it and so did he. I enjoyed a book he wrote about his childhood and how he went from athiest to christian. I can't remember what it was called now. I also read Letters to C.S. Lewis that his brother put together. He has a good mind. And like the others said let he who has his theology perfect cast the first stone. I like what I heard R.C. say once paraphrasing, &quot;the more I learn the more I realize how little I know&quot;. And that is R.C. talking!!


----------



## MICWARFIELD

Miesel reminds me of Darwin Fish. Are any of you familiar with Fish? He used to attend MacArthur's church until he decided that MacArthur is a heritic. You can also find Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, and Sproul on his heritic list. Miesel is a little less radical than Fish though.

MIke


----------



## Bryan

Misel and Darwin Fish are indeed connected. To quote Phile Johnson, this time for his article on Mr. Fish, http://www.atruecult.info/dfishfaq.htm

&quot;Self-styled &quot;discernment&quot; expert Rick Miesel once placed his coveted imprimatur on Darwin Fish. (In 1994 Fish and Miesel were making plans to start a church together near Miesel's home in Indiana.) But then Darwin began declaring Miesel a false teacher. Now Meisel desperately tries to evade responsibility for his early influence on Fish.
Mr. Miesel and Mr. Fish are kindred spirits. Fish began his career as a disciple of Miesel. (Miesel's own list of &quot;false teachers&quot; is better known than-and nearly as long as-Fish's.) And that is precisely why they are no longer friends. Both Miesel and Fish believe there is no such thing as a minor or secondary point of truth; all truth is ultimately essential and fundamental. In practice, both Miesel and Fish make their own personal judgment the final arbiter for any disputed doctrinal fine-points. Predictably, when they found a point on which they could not come to agreement, they responded by anathematizing one another.&quot;

I was on Baptist Board when one of Mr. Fish's repersentitives (Al Soto) came on so I did some research into that group. I came to the opinion that they have been rebuked by more godly people then I am, and Mr. Fish is under the discpline of MacArthur's church therefore they should not be allowed in Christian fellowship anywhere until they repent. :thumbdown:

Bryan
SDG


----------



## FrozenChosen

I looked at that site, Bryan...

:blah1::blah1::blah1:

Amazing how angry some people can become, isn't it?

Although I suppose were it not for God we'd all be something like that...


----------



## RickyReformed

Here's an article titled "Did C.S. Lewis Go To Heaven?" found at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=103 (Make your own opinion on this one, fellas.)

Concerning Miesel and Fish, they are alot like the folks found at this website (appropriately named): www.outsidethecamp.org ; Checkout his "Heterodoxy Hall of Shame" - www.outsidethecamp.org/heterodoxy.htm - it's a "Who's Who" of Calvinists. Basically they believe if you "speak peace" to a neighbor who has a wife whose second cousin's mother-in-law believes Arminians are saved, your toast.


----------



## Ianterrell

Lewis certainly didn't believe in justification by faith alone. His soteriology was merit based. I hope he made it into the kingdom.


----------



## turmeric

Lewis is in heaven, y'all, I saw him in a dream last nite talking to George MacDonald...no, wait,that was in a book I read...that's right, [i:da8bb91d52]The Great Divorce[/i:da8bb91d52] one of my favorite books by Lewis. He misunderstood justification by faith but so do a lot of us, we're justified by faith not by perfect theology!


----------



## Ianterrell

Faith in what?


----------



## JohnV

Lewis' works deserve to be read many more times than once. Mere Christianity may be the only exception to that, but that is because it is a reworked transcript from his oringinal radio messages. 

Once you have read the lines, then you read between the lines. In some books it helps to know somethings about Lewis; in most, though, it makes no difference. He is a master of the use of words, the phrasing of a sentence, and the building of thoughts through this media. I enjoy reading his works, and deeply appreciate what they have done for me in helping me to develope my thinking and my ability to express myself with the written word. 

Some books of his I believe are necessary reading for certain occasions. I would recommend [u:bf0ef48db1]Pilgrims Regress[/u:bf0ef48db1] for those who want to develope some kind of understanding of modern cultural philisophy; I would recommend the Space Trilogy for those who want to try to understand the wider dimensions of reality than the mere newspaper headlines. [u:bf0ef48db1]The Ivory Tower[/u:bf0ef48db1] was never completed by Lewis, and perhaps it was meant to be that way, even beyond Lewis' own intentions, but is an important addition to the Trilogy all the same. The [u:bf0ef48db1]Chronicles of Narnia[/u:bf0ef48db1] series is wonderful for children; they love to have them read to them, and then love to read them later themselves. But they are more than that. There are little things throughout the series that adults can learn from as well. The more one reads them, the more one stands in awe of Lewis' talent and skill.

Some scenes that are indelible in my mind: Lucy asking if Aslan is dangerous; Puddleglum's final apologetic before the Green Lady; the parliament of owls; and the wardrobe door, from the inside. There is more there than the words.


----------



## Ianterrell

[quote:89fe6a07ff="Paul manata"]Ian,

What would you say of a Christian who held to theistic evolution? Does that undermine a real Adam, a real fall... a real need for Christ?[/quote:89fe6a07ff]

No, Paul I would not. I don't think that evolution and merit-based salvation are equal errors. Evolution affects soteriology indirectly, justification by faith and works overthrows the cross head on.


----------



## Ianterrell

I believe in purgatory. Our souls demand purgatory, don't they? My favourite image on this matter comes from the dentist's chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn, a voice will say, 'Rinse your mouth out with this.' This will be purgatory. 

-From Letters to Malcolm.


----------



## Learner

*Yes,I have read some of his books*

Ole C.S.had some good lines,but...I do not understand the fascination for a man with such unorthodox views.Here on the PB men with far less out-of bound notions have been taken to task.
Pardon me.In my college chapel services(a long time ago)C.S.Lewis was quoted more than the Lord Himself.I do not think he deserves all the accolades from the Christian community.
In "Letters to Malcolm"...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."
In Christianity Today June 15,1998:Millet,Dean of B.Y.U.said"C.S.Lewis is so well received by Latter-day Saints because of his broad and inclusive vision of Christianity."
In C.T. Dec.20,1963r.D.M.Lloyd-Jones said that C.S.Lewis was"an opponent of the substitionary and penal view of the atonement."
Lloyd-Jones did not regard him or Malcolm Mc...as evangelicals or Christians either in quotes I can't find presently.


----------



## a mere housewife

Tim, perhaps Lloyd-Jones did doubt Lewis' Christianity at one time, but my husband told me that Lloyd-Jones did regard Lewis as a Christian brother-- they were on some sort of sea voyage together, and were able to talk more. Unfortunately, my husbands' books are still pretty much packed away or I could find the place in Iain Murray's biography (which my husband has read several times). The Calvary Contender states that Lloyd-Jones doubted it, but they don't list any sources.

Martin Luther believed in -- is it consubstantion?
The Bible is also well received with Latter-day Saints.

Lewis believed in the deity of Christ, that He physically came and lived and died for our sins, and that we have peace with God through His blood. I believe that 1 John and the judgment of charity require that we consider him a Christian brother on these grounds: and honestly, I can't wait to meet him in heaven. He probably was too inclusive in some of his views: but I do believe that he would extend more true, Biblical good faith and charity to the evangelical, fundamentalist community than many of them extend toward him. We can also be too exclusive, which is equally unBiblical, and it's unfortunate that most of us overbalance on end or the other, and then doubt the salvation of those who've overbalanced in the other direction-- I know you agree, because of your posts in the quotes forum. To me, it is more significant that Lewis was kept from this additonal error, than that he overbalanced. He is an incredible writer, and perhaps that is why he receives so many accolades. I'm not saying he deserves to be quoted more than Scripture; but he does deserve to be quoted. Few people are able to state things as powerfully and clearly, and reasonably as he did. And he had an amazing sanctified imagination (I am still just astonished with [i:96be681b25]Til We Have Faces[/i:96be681b25], and it's been a year and half since I read it) and his fiction has been a huge benefit to me.

Joshua said:
[quote:96be681b25]I did, however, get burned out by the time I got to The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.[/quote:96be681b25]

Then you missed out on the best ones: [i:96be681b25]The Horse and His Boy[/i:96be681b25] and [i:96be681b25]The Magician's Nephew[/i:96be681b25]. You need to read them to Chloe to supplement the book about drums.

JohnV: my favorite part of the [i:96be681b25]Chronicles[/i:96be681b25] is where Shasta is moping about what a hard time he's had what with all the lion attacks, etc., and Aslan tells him that on the contrary, he is very blessed: all of those lions were him.


----------



## a mere housewife

I quizzed my husband about this at lunch: Iain Murray reports that Lloyd-Jones had lunch with Lewis, and that they were on the same boat trip to Ireland once. Murray says that they talked about various things-- Lloyd-Jones asked when C. S. Lewis would write another book, and they discussed prayer. Murray reports that Lloyd-Jones encouraged Lewis. 

Here is the negative quote from Lloyd-Jones, printed in [i:ab2f37e752]Christianity Today[/i:ab2f37e752] in 1960, I think:

"Because C.S. Lewis was essentially a philosopher, his view of salvation was defective in two key respects: (1) Lewis believed and taught one could reason oneself into Christianity, and (2) he was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal theory of the Atonement."

In the light of the quotes Paul posted, and the ones following (and because there is a complete lack of context wherever I find the MLJ quote), it seems more reasonable to assume that Lloyd-Jones was referring to the outcome of Lewis' inconsistent views, rather than implying that Lewis was an enemy of Christ (notice that he says Lewis erred because he was essentially a philosopher [as opposed to a theologian?], not because he was an unbeliever). Both elements of this defective view of salvation are common to Arminian theology and Arminian Christians, and pointing out that a person has this defective view of salvation is not equivalent to denying their salvation.

From [i:ab2f37e752]Miracles[/i:ab2f37e752]

"On the one hand Death is the triumph of Satan, the punishment of the Fall, and the last enemy. Christ shed tears at the grave of Lazarus and sweated blood in Gethsemane: the Life of Lives that was in Him detested this penal obscenity not less than we do, but more. On the other hand, only he who loses his life will save it. We are baptized into the [i:ab2f37e752]death[/i:ab2f37e752] of Christ, and it is the remedy for the Fall. Death is, in fact, what some modern people call 'ambivalent.' it is Satan's great weapon and also God's great weapon: it is holy and unholy; our supreme disgrace and our only hope; the thing Christ came to conquer and the means by which He conquered...."

"...The sentence that those who ate of the forbidden fruit would be driven away from the Tree of life was implicit in the composite nature with which Man was created. But to convert this penal death into the means of eternal life-- to add to its negative and preventive function a positive and saving function-- it was further necessary that death would be accepted... But only a Man who did not need to have been a Man at all unless He had chosen, only one who served in our sad regiment as a volunteer, yet also only one who was perfectly a Man, could perform this perfect dying; and thus, (which way you put it is unimportant) either defeat death or redeem it. He tasted death on behalf of all others... Because Vicariousness is the very idiom of the reality He has created, His death can become ours."[/i]

"...Thus in one sense there is nothing more in a regenerate man than in an unregenerate man, just as there is nothing more in a man who is walking in the right direction than in one who is walking in the wrong direction. In another sense, however, it might be said that the regenerate man is [i:ab2f37e752]totally[/i:ab2f37e752] different from the unregenate, for the regenerate life, the Christ that is formed in him, transforms every part of him: in it his spirit, soul and body will all be reborn.... the purely rational and moral man who tries to live entirely by his created spirit finds himself forced to treat the passions and imaginations of his soul as mere enemies to be destroyed or imprisoned. But the regenerate man will find his soul eventually harmonised with his spirit by the life of Christ that is in him."

(This last quote to show that Lewis did have an understanding of salvation a miraculous rebirth-- as more than a matter of pure rationality and morality.)


----------



## Ianterrell

Well these excerpts are certainly encouraging. Thanks for posting them Paul and Heidi. Looks like I was wrong about Lewis.


----------



## Learner

I found this in Dr. D.M.Lloyd-Jones' book : "What is an Evangelical? "He was discussing Malcolm Muggeridge first. He said that Muggeridge's book : "Jesus Rediscovered " was bad news. " I would not hesitate to say that Malcolm Muggeridge is not a Christian at all ." Then , he went on to list a bunch of biblical denials from M. M. :No virgin birth, miracles as facts, atonement , physical resurrection , person of the Holy Spirit , and prayer . He went on to say that M.M. was a mystic. Then , in the next paragraph Lloyd-Jones says that : " There have been many other examples of this. I find that C. S. Lewis has almost become the patron saint of evangelicals . He was never an evangelical and said so quite plainly himself ."


----------



## voided user1

My opinion is that C.S. Lewis should be taken for what he's worth. I've thoroughly enjoyed his work, and would like to own all his works. But evangelicals have a tendency to cult-swarm people like him, Tolkien, Mel Gibson, and anyone who does something even possibly evangelical. In my opinion, Lewis should be seen for what he was: a philosopher, particularly a literati. Lewis never was an evangelical theologian, and we shouldn't revise him to fit our expectations.

There is at least one passage I ran onto in the Narnia series years ago that has stuck in my head. It was along the lines of the Billy Graham postulation that you can be saved if you have good intentions, regardless of whether you've ever heard the Gospel or not. Keep your head on and Lewis will do you good. Read ANYBODY without your head and you're gonna get screwed up for life.


----------



## Learner

Did anyone read the article by John Robbins that RickyReformed referenced on C. S. L. ? ( I think it was an Aug. 1 post) I know Robbins has his critics and he should be taken to task at times , but this article should be read .


----------



## Learner

That was a very informative post Paul . Thank you . I learned a number of things ( my handle is Learner , after all ) . I need to exercise discernment when it come to Robbins . I already knew with J. R. that I had to be careful . But your info gives more food for thought . However , we shouldn't throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater . Some of his stuff is excellent . I mean J . R. is no C. S. Lewis , he operates in an entirely different realm , but if many on the PB appreciate the writings of C.S. L. , then surely since they can stomach a little heresy here and there , then maybe they should develop a grid with respect to Robbins . who isn't heretical as far as I know . But if he is misrepresenting folks and things like that then the Trinity Foundation is a zone to be treaded lightly .
In addition to Robbins on the T. F. website , he does have guest authors contribute articles , stalwarts such as Robert Reymond . So the site is valuable , we just have to be cautious .
Moderators : if comments on Robbins continue , should this be transfered to another thread ?


----------



## RickyReformed

Hermano Paul, 

I confess - I do like reading Robbins; he can be quite entertaining and usually has some good insights. I would certainly fall on his side of the issue concerning the current Auburn Avenue controversy involving Wilson, Schlissel, Barach, Wilkins, etc. I would certainly caution new and/or undiscerning Christians from wandering around the Trinity Foundation website haphazardly. But I would caution the same persons to be even [u:a609a4cd54]more[/u:a609a4cd54] discerning about wandering around the Covenant Media Foundation website. On their homepage, they are currently offering "The Federal Vision: A Collection of Essays on the Covenant", "Reformed" Is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant", "Against Christianity", and "The Call of Grace": all of which, in the opinion of many (ask Fred, for instance), undermine the doctrine of Justification By Faith Alone. So while this certainly is a bifurcation, I would rather have a defective apologetic than a defective view of justification. Wouldn't you agree?

I too have read those articles by Michael Sudduth on Clark, which to my knowledge remain unanswered by the Clarkians. Do you have any idea why Michael Sudduth pulled his articles on Clark from his website? Luckily,er, I mean Providentially(!) I have some hardcopies somewhere that I printed when I first read them.

Ricky Reformed


----------



## fredtgreco

*Discernment is Essential !*

I think I mostly agree with both Paul and Ricky on this one. I have interacted with Robbins on another list, one on which you would have expected him to be able to participate well - it was a list owned by Rev. Andrew Webb, an opponent of the Federal Vision and Auburn theology, and the membership is generally opposed to the same. But it took about a week of Robbins' interaction to get himself removed from the list, for maligning the list owners, declaring the Apostles Creed to be heresy, and other such things. He also wrote a critique of Tabletalk that depended ([i:4d78b49de5]pace[/i:4d78b49de5] Phillip) upon a baptistic exact identity of the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant in order to show Tabletalk was supporting heresy.

At the same time, I think that Robbins has been pretty much on the mark with the Federal Vision stuff. The irony is that while he does so, he does it arm in arm with the Theonomists and Van Tillians of the RCUS.

As for CM Foundation, since I am not a huge Bahnsen fan (not against him per se, but just not one of my main sources) and not a Theonomist (rather a vanilla-Westminster theonomist), I rarely look at articles there. The only time I usually do is on a recommendation from Paul Manata. I too am very concerned by the trajectory taken by CMF - they are clearly interested in promoting Shepherd, Schlissel and the Federal Vision (even to the extent of trying to dig Bahnsen up out of the grave as a Shepherd supporter). For that reason, unless someone is very discerning and aware of the issues involved I would not recommend "looking around" at CMF. Stick to the links provided by Paul and others here.


----------



## RickyReformed

Believe it or not I'm on "Scary Gary's" economic email list! He's got me convinced the economy is going to tank in the near future so I'm caching food and stocking up on ammo here in East Texas! :no: 

Thanks guys, I'm glad we all agree:  

Federal Vision :thumbdown: 

Presuppositionalism :thumbup: 

Uh, wait, did I say that? I meant, er, reformed classipistemologists...or sumthin like that!?!?!


----------



## RamistThomist

Digging Up Bones

Although I would take issue with his quasi-Arminiansim, his stuff is too valuable to pass up. Another guy on PB and myself were talking about popularizing presuppositonalism. Who were the two (arguably) most influential apologists of the 20th century? CS Lewis and Francis Schaeffer. Yes, Van Til's stuff is tighter and more biblical, but those two wrote with beauty and passion and immediately applied their apologetic to real life (think Francis Schaeffer arming the Christian populace against abortion). Lewis's writing is some of the best, ever.!. (that in no way takes away my appreciation for Van Til and Bahnsen. The Stein debate was the defining moment in my intellectual life).

I don't normally go to Lewis for theology (ok, I almost never go to him for theology), but for him illuminating reality. He can write some stuff that is so brilliant, that shines light on a new facet of human existence that I have never thought of before--and it usually stays within the bounds of orthodoxy.

I would recommend his non-religious works
_A Discarded Image_

I have yet to read the other stuff.

_A Study in Words_
_Experiment in Criticism_

What I think is needed is for people like me to hone my apologetic/reasoning skills to an edge, and then polish it with the above rhetoric (wait a minute! That's the mentality behind the Trivium!)

Hagiography coming later.

[Edited on 8--20-05 by Draught Horse]


----------

