C.S. Lewis and Sola Scriptura?

[reteeks21]

Thanks for the correction. CS Lewis did not convert because he was already a Catholic as you concluded.

I agree with you both completely, but from everything I have heard and read he was adamant that he was NOT Catholic! In fact, Tolkien was quite upset and hurt that after the journey of faith that he had walked along side of Lewis with that Lewis did not become Catholic.

 

[ralphinal]

It is my understanding that C.S. Lewis saw the Truth in Catholicism but many other forces kept in Anglican, including social and familial ones. If his friends saw him as a virtual Catholic, that does not make him Catholic. If he had desired to be Catholic, he would have become one.

 

[GKC]

My reference on CS Lewis’ conversion is available in the web. Unless you have reference to prove they are all false, I welcome them.

I’m sorry if my views disparage you in any way. Thanks for correcting me. I was trying to refer to Henry VIII’s role in the separation of Church of England from Rome.

Believe me, after collecting and studying Lewis for around 45 years, and accumulating a library of his works and studies on him that would choke a horse, one thing I can tell you flatly and briefly. Lewis never converted to the Roman Catholic Church. Nor did he come close to it.

You can rely on that statement. Others I make might be more problematic.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Thanks for the correction. CS Lewis did not convert because he was already a Catholic as you concluded.

As an Anglo-Catholic, I agree with this statement. But I am not sure what you understand by it.

GKC

 

[GKC]

How did he stand on justification? Was it the Luther “covering” or the Catholic “sanctification”? If the latter, then my review of Christensen’s book is going to take a turn around p. 84.

I suffer here from a handicap of my own making. My library is in one house, my computer in another, and that’s the way it will be for as far as I can see. And I have almost no time for checking stuff anyway, so most of my comments must rely on memory.

That said, it’s sanctification. Though, as Christensen and every other writer you will pick up will point out, Lewis was not a systematizer in his theology (as oppposed to his approach to scripture, which was based on his literary background). But sanctification was part of the reason he believed in purgation. We are not covered, we are made perfect. Lewis said as much, that God proposes to, and will, make us perfect, not account us pefect, though, as stated, I’m working off the top of my head here.

Might be interesting to look through the indexes in the multi-volume collections of his letters, that Hooper is putting out. I’ll try to do that tonight.

GKC

 

[MarcoPolo]

But sanctification was part of the reason he believed in purgation. We are not covered, we are made perfect. Lewis said as much, that God proposes to, and will, make us perfect, not account us pefect, though, as stated, I’m working off the top of my head here.

In the meantime, I found exactly your connection about Purgatory in the introduction to C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church.

The intro also notes Lewis’ belief in grace administered through sacraments clearly in Mere Christianity, p. 64. I looked up the page for this pertinent paragraph:
And let me make it quite clear that when Christians say the Christ-life is in them, they do not mean simply something mental or moral. When they speak of being “in Christ” or of Christ being “in them,” this is not simply a way of saying that they are thinking about Christ or copying Him. They
mean that Christ is actually operating through them; that the whole mass of Christians are the physical organism through which Christ acts-that we are. His fingers and muscles, the cells of His body. And perhaps that explains one or two things. It explains why this new life is spread not only by purely mental acts like belief, but by bodily acts like baptism and Holy
Communion.

 

[GKC]

Edwin - would you say his view of sola scriptura was that of the Reformers?

GKC - how was it nuanced?

I meant that his view of scripture as sacred literature, and of other things as also inspired (Christensen is right, IMO) was a little outside the normal Anglican appreciation (assuming there is such a thing.

I think that Christensen is usually right, though he certainly has a silly sentence in the preface to the 1989 edition. Shades of the Bishop’s ghost from THE GREAT DIVORCE. But he seems to treat Lewis’ views fairily, if occasionally at arms length. His p. 84 statement seems to me to be not totally unfair, given Lewis’ problem with the magisterium concept (as he once said, it was not the idea that he must affirm and consent to whatever the RCC taught that bothered him, aso much as that he would have to afirm and consent to whatever it taught in the future), but given that Christensen’s comment is not so much about inerrancy (the subject of that chapter), but sola scriptura, the statement that Lewis was in the tradition of the reformers is not one that I could agree totally with. But when the statement is read as a comment on the immediately preceding sentence, that seems about right. And certainly, when you continue on to “what happened after the Reformation”, I think he has it right.

Oh, and as to Anglo-Catholicsm and Lewis’ relations with it (Hi, Edwin). Lewis was not a “party man” in Anglicanism, or in Christianity. He thought himself a mere Anglican, as also a mere Christian. He did distance himself from the more stridently reformed edges of Angilcanism, tacitly, at least, and openly from the more liberal interpretations of Christianity, of any stripe. But he slowly came to appreciate and share many of the particulars of Anglo-Catholicism, such as regular auricular confession, the Real Presence, weekly communion (when it was not as common as it now is), the concept of purgation, among them. He also subscribed, as Joseph Pearce pointed out, to THE GUARDIAN, an Anglo-Catholic weekly paper, where SCREWTAPE LETTERS and THE GREAT DIVORCE first appeared.

GKC

 

[GKC]

In the meantime, I found exactly your connection about Purgatory in the introduction to C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church.

The intro also notes Lewis’ belief in grace administered through sacraments clearly in Mere Christianity, p. 64. I looked up the page for this pertinent paragraph:
And let me make it quite clear that when Christians say the Christ-life is in them, they do not mean simply something mental or moral. When they speak of being “in Christ” or of Christ being “in them,” this is not simply a way of saying that they are thinking about Christ or copying Him. They
mean that Christ is actually operating through them; that the whole mass of Christians are the physical organism through which Christ acts-that we are. His fingers and muscles, the cells of His body. And perhaps that explains one or two things. It explains why this new life is spread not only by purely mental acts like belief, but by bodily acts like baptism and Holy
Communion.

Even so. I had that thought in mind.

GKC

 

[Chancellare]

Believe me, after collecting and studying Lewis for around 45 years, and accumulating a library of his works and studies on him that would choke a horse, one thing I can tell you flatly and briefly. Lewis never converted to the Roman Catholic Church. Nor did he come close to it.

You can rely on that statement. Others I make might be more problematic.

GKC

I understand the point you are trying to convey.
Just for common understanding, let me know if any of these are not true:

• He confessed regularly at some point to a catholic priest
• He believed in purgatory, Sacraments and prayer for the dead
• He did not believe in Biblical inerrancy
• He received the Catholic Sacrament of extreme unction before he died.
• Many atheists and Protestants who read his books converted to Catholicism.

 

[Contarini]

I asked because I’m doing a paper on C.S. Lewis on Scripture by Michael Christensen (Drew University) and in his book of the same title on p. 84, he states, unqualified, “Lewis stands firmly in the Reformation tradition.” That paragraph is preceded with Reformation definition of Sola Scriptura as “the supreme source of revelation” and Scripture by itself brings man into “full knowledge of the redeeming love of God in Christ.”

In a brief paragraph on the medieval Church on the prior page, Christensen asserted that the Church affirmed “the authority of Scripture through the Church.”

I was certainly hesitant to embrace the claim that Lewis and the Reformers, as Christensen defined it, had the same view of sola scriptura. Lewis embraced the grace effected in sacramental life did he not?

I don’t know what the “grace effected in sacramental life” has to do with sola scriptura.

Christensen is a Methodist and as such will have a fairly broad understanding of what the “Reformation tradition” is, I suspect. I used to run into him from time to time when my wife worked at Drew, and I could have asked him what he meant!

As you quote it, I think Christensen’s dichotomy is too sharp. Lewis would have agreed that Scripture functions through the Church. Whether that puts him outside the “Reformation tradition” is arguable.

In Heiko Oberman’s terms, Lewis definitely held to “Tradition I” rather than “Tradition II.” He saw Scripture as a control to help us remain faithful to what Christ and the Apostles originally taught, but he approached Scripture in the context of tradition and commentary. When speaking of doctrinal authority, he will often speak of Scripture along with references to the Fathers and the Christian tradition broadly. I’d say that for him Scripture was the supreme authority within a whole range of authorities that help keep us within the boundaries of the historic Christian Faith.

I would say that where Lewis differed most clearly from the Reformers was in what he didn’t say. You find in Calvin, for instance, a very strong doctrine of Scripture as the Word of God with inherent power (through the working of the Holy Spirit) to teach the truth and bring people to God. I don’t find Lewis talking about Scripture in that way. In one letter, he heavily qualified the sense in which Scripture can be said to be the Word of God precisely by insisting that it must be read rightly with the help of good interpreters. He wouldn’t have had a lot of use for the language of “self-interpretation” and “self-authentication” that you find among many conservative Protestants. He was very aware of how difficult Scripture is and how easy to misinterpret.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I understand the point you are trying to convey.
Just for common understanding, let me know if any of these are not true:

• He confessed regularly at some point to a catholic priest

To an Anglican priest. I think you are misled here by the common Anglican insistence that we are fully Catholic (in the theological sense of the “Catholic Church” mentioned in the Creed). This is not talking about “Catholic” as you define it–in communion with Rome.

• He believed in purgatory, Sacraments and prayer for the dead

Well, Protestants believe in Sacraments! Yes, Lewis believed in purgatory, but as an opinion not as dogma. And yes, he prayed for the dead, like many other modern Anglicans.

• He did not believe in Biblical inerrancy

No, he didn’t, but are you saying that disbelief in inerrancy is a Catholic tenet? That is not what many Catholics on this forum have told me. Certainly there seems to be a lot more flexibility on the subject within modern Catholicism than among ultra-conservative Protestants, but many Protestants don’t believe in inerrancy either (or qualify it in ways similar to the ways currently dominant within Catholicism).

• He received the Catholic Sacrament of extreme unction before he died.

Not in a form that members of your Communion would consider valid.

• Many atheists and Protestants who read his books converted to Catholicism.

True enough. But many others didn’t!

Edwin

 

[SIA]

It is my understanding that C.S. Lewis saw the Truth in Catholicism but many other forces kept in Anglican, including social and familial ones. If his friends saw him as a virtual Catholic, that does not make him Catholic. If he had desired to be Catholic, he would have become one.

And you are absolutely correct. Lewis was Anglican and didn’t wish to convert to anything. He believed in Purgatory as a personal belief, not as anyone or any entity including Anglicanism required it.

 

[ralphinal]

And you are absolutely correct. Lewis was Anglican and didn’t wish to convert to anything. He believed in Purgatory as a personal belief, not as anyone or any entity including Anglicanism required it.

Oh, I had forgotten that. I love Lewis’s writtings, and I see a lot of Catholic Thought in them. However, I cannot say that his Catholic Thought would be that much different from your Anglican thought. The things that separate us are smaller than that which separates us from some others.

 

[SIA]

Oh, I had forgotten that. I love Lewis’s writtings, and I see a lot of Catholic Thought in them. However, I cannot say that his Catholic Thought would be that much different from your Anglican thought. The things that separate us are smaller than that which separates us from some others.

very true.

 

[Jerusha]

It is my understanding that C.S. Lewis saw the Truth in Catholicism but many other forces kept him Anglican, including social and familial ones.

Tolkien said that it was Lewis’ pride in his ethnic- cultural heritage (Orange Irish) that kept him Anglican.

 

[Chancellare]

To an Anglican priest.

According to Mary and Steve van Nattan, ‘CS Lewis: Satan’s Wisest Fool’:

Indeed, he may have been a Catholic for some time before his death. He believed in purgatory and prayed for the dead. He went to a priest regularly for confession (C.S. Lewis: A Biography , p. 198). He received the sacrament of extreme unction on July, 16th, 1963 (p. 301), a sacrament that was officially ministered only to Roman Catholics at that time. It is enough to cause one to wonder if whether he was a “plant” for the Catholic church all along, or merely a mixed up man groping for some hope of salvation at the end of his life

Not in a form that members of your Communion would consider valid.

Edwin

What form is valid? Not valid?

 

[GKC]

Tolkien said that it was Lewis’ pride in his ethnic- cultural heritage (Orange Irish) that kept him Anglican.

Tolkien’s opinion was certainly worth listening too. But it is also possible to argue with it, as I have done many times.

We know why Lewis didn’t cross the Tiber. He told us. Just as we know why Chesterton did, though I seen less than rational reasons attributed to him, too. To attribute the decisions of such men to non-rational causes poisons the well of discourse and undermines the presumed validity of any of their opinions.

GKC

 

[MarcoPolo]

I don’t know what the “grace effected in sacramental life” has to do with sola scriptura.

The reason I brought up grace and sacraments was because of those central issues between the Catholic Church and Reformation. Luther argued against these things based on Scripture, but since Lewis came to opposite conclusions, I think it’s fair to say Christensen’s unqualified statement demands correction.

In one letter, he heavily qualified the sense in which Scripture can be said to be the Word of God precisely by insisting that it must be read rightly with the help of good interpreters. He wouldn’t have had a lot of use for the language of “self-interpretation” and “self-authentication” that you find among many conservative Protestants. He was very aware of how difficult Scripture is and how easy to misinterpret.

Yeah, I emailed Christensen myself, but no response so far. And do you remember which letter that was in which Lewis spoke of sound interpreters?

 

[ralphinal]

I have seen that statement by Tolkein before, too.

In the end, he did not swim. That is what we must understand. Now, that does not mean anything in and of itself. We just have to accept that he was Anglican.

 

[GKC]

According to Mary and Steve van Nattan, ‘CS Lewis: Satan’s Wisest Fool’:

Indeed, he may have been a Catholic for some time before his death. He believed in purgatory and prayed for the dead. He went to a priest regularly for confession (C.S. Lewis: A Biography , p. 198). He received the sacrament of extreme unction on July, 16th, 1963 (p. 301), a sacrament that was officially ministered only to Roman Catholics at that time. It is enough to cause one to wonder if whether he was a “plant” for the Catholic church all along, or merely a mixed up man groping for some hope of salvation at the end of his life

What form is valid? Not valid?

Listen to me closely. I’ve studied this for many years. Lewis remained an Anglican, all his life. The postions he gradually grew to accept; confession, purgation, extreme unction, etc,are not limited to Roman Catholics. Many, many Anglicans follow them, too. And not merely those in the Anglo-Catholic tradition.

Your source (not the quoted bio) is both ignorant and wrong, on Lewis, and on Anglicanism. Would you like the names of roughly 10-15 books which will explain this to you? Try Hooper and Green’s bio, Pearce’s C.S. LEWIS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Hooper’s C. S. LEWIS, COMPANION AND GUIDE, Geoge Sayer’s JACK, Christopher Derrick’s C.S. LEWIS AND THE CHURCH OF ROME, John Randolph Wills’ PLEASURES FOREVERMORE: THE THEOLOGY OF C.S. LEWIS, Christensen’s book C. S. LEWIS ON SCRIPTURE, that is discussed in this thread, Clyde Kilby’ THE CHRISTIAN WORLD OF C.S. LEWIS, and several places in the 3 collected volumes of letters. Use the index. After you are through with those, let me know. I’ll give you more.

Amazing.

GKC