Lewis & Tolkien

"tolkien was roman catholic, therefore a heretic.
This would be hilarious, if it weren't disturbing. Because he was a Roman Catholic, he was a heretic?
yes. praying to sinless mary, the queen of heaven, co-redeemer with christ isn't heresy? priests and pennance for the forgiveness of sins isn't heresy? believing christ to literally be present in the lord's supper isn't heresy? believing that salvation is only to be found in the catholic church isn't heresy?"

Heresy can be very much in the eye of the beholder.
In my younger years I believed that the independent fundamental baptist church, that I was visiting (I'm still a member of that same church) was heretical because it had altar calls and lacked anything interesting to look at
for when the sermons got boring. And they would always be very boring to my nine year old mind.
Nowadays I completely disagree....


Except for the occasional lucid moment, when I suddenly understand how right I was

 

yes, as a new christian i read mere christianity, god in the dock, screwtape letters, his book on the psalms, his book on miracles, pilgrim's regress, and the great divorce. on the fiction side, i've read a couple of the narnia books.

his book on the psalms made me realize even as a new christian i had more faith than he did, and the more i read the bible the more i could see his serious errors.

 

Originally posted by WisdomSeeker:
Completely side stepped my post that said that C.S. Lewis was not Catholic but belonged to the Church of England which is protestant. But of course if it had been acknowleged, the continueance of the whole "Catholics are heritics" rant would be rediculous.

read closer, that was about tolkien.

Is there a website out there that will tell us poor Christians what is acceptable to read?

www.blueletterbible.org

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. But at some point we have to take responsibility for our own choices and not expect to convert everyone else to believe like us.

ok, feel free to ignore my posts.

 

I have read everything by C.S. lewis. I grew up on "The Chronicles of Narnia", and as an adult I think my favorite is "The Abolition of Man".

My daughter will certainly be reading his books when she comes of age, and I would be proud to have the man in my home, or teaching at my church if he was alive today.

 

C.S. Lewis' autobiography, Surprised by Joy, describes his conversion to Christianity in great detail. It was written in 1955 and I would suspect it to be accurate to his later life since he died in 1963.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Proverbs 29:23 (ESV)
One's pride will bring him low,
but he who is lowly in spirit will obtain honor.

 

Proverbs 29:23 (ESV)
One's pride will bring him low,
but he who is lowly in spirit will obtain honor. </font>[/QUOTE]lewis thinks the old testament is myth, i in faith follow jesus in thinking it history.

i make no apologies for my statement above. if that makes me proud, i trust my lord will deal with me appropriately, though your concern for my spiritual well being is appreciated.

 

lewis does not think the old testament is reliable history, but rather god inspired myth.

jesus disagrees with him.

 

The word "myth" is from the Greek word mythos, which means "sacred story". There is nothing here concerning it being true or not. It's a story. The old testiment is full of stories. They are sacred stories. So, in this sense, they are also myths.

This isn't the popular usage of the word, especially in 2003. But Lewis lived quite a while ago, and not over here in the US, either. Do you have specific evidence that Lewis thought the OT to be fiction?

 

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000i/townsend2000e.htm

this squares with what i remember reading...

A. The Bible

Naturally one who espouses Darwin's theory of human biology forces a different view of some parts of the Bible than the traditionally accepted evangelical viewpoint. This was the case with Lewis.

On the positive side, Lewis owned: "The Scriptures come before me as a book claiming divine inspiration." Also he wrote that "all Holy Scripture [including even the imprecatory psalms] is in some sense-though not all parts of it in the same sense-the word of God."

The following statement would seem to categorize Lewis as neo-orthodox in his understanding of the Bible: "Naivete, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed [from the pages of the Bible]. The total result is not 'the Word of God' in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God?"

In his books Lewis amplified on his understanding of the Bible's inspiration: "The earliest stratum of the Old Testament contains many truths in a form which I take to be legendary, or even mythical-things like Noah's Ark or the sun standing still upon Ajalon," while in the New Testament "history reigns supreme." Elsewhere he wrote, "The first chapters of Genesis, no doubt, give the story in the form of a folktale" Referring to the notion that "every sentence of the Old Testament has historical or scientific truth," Lewis admitted: "This I do not hold, any more than St. Jerome did when he said that Moses described Creation 'after the manner of a popular poet' (as we should say, mythically) or than Calvin did when he doubted whether the story of Job were history or fiction." Again, Lewis penned: "The Old Testament contains fabulous elements" which would include "Jonah and the Whale, Noah and his Ark, but the Court history of King David is probably as reliable [historically] as the Court history of Louis XIV."

 

oops, the ? after 'Word of God' does not belong there. when I cut and paste for some reason i get a lot of question marks. i thought i had edited them all out, but apparently not.

 

In an email I received from Chritianity Today yesterday there was a link to an article about the friendship between Lewis and Tolkein. Instead of starting a new thread, I thought I would just add it to this one.

Here is a link to the article: Tollers & Jack