C.S.Lewis voyage to venus

I am a reader of C.S.Lewis and my children are to,From some posts here and hearing a brother make mention of part of this book, I decided to dig out my old copy. I must confess that I read the book for R.E. Olevel some 25 yrs ago I think! ! And remembered not enjoying it.This time around has been a delight of sorts,now being born again and a bit older.I found my thinking being exerecised and have seen a new depth to the work.However there are still some unanswered questions like1. Why did Lewis spend so much in the book describing the landscape and geography2. Why was the tempter Weston introduced as a fellow man from earth or his body possesed by satan in this way3. Why did the heel of Ransom not heal.I think there are less questions now than when a school boy, and yes it would be nice to ask the man himself why he choose the imagary he did.If anyone has any thoughts please indulge :-)

However there are still some unanswered questions like1. Why did Lewis spend so much in the book describing the landscape and geographyI think he was just setting the scene and indulging his imagination.2. Why was the tempter Weston introduced as a fellow man from earth or his body possesed by satan in this wayYou need to remember the first book in the trilogy 'Out of the Silent Planet' which describes Lewis view of a cosmic warfare which began its physical infestation on the earth and now spreads its pollution to Venus. Consequently human beings (Weston and Ransom) are the agents of both the sin and its remedy. (as in our world... the first and last Adam.)3. Why did the heel of Ransom not heal.This is partly Lewis medieval imagery I suspect. This is the heel wound received during the 'battle' in which the serpent's head (Weston) is bruised. The wound continues to bleed signifying its continuing cost but the blood itself has continuing efficacy on the land where flowers spring up in the footprints.Its a long time since I read it too, but you do need the foundation of the first book to understand Lewis' imagery, and it as well to remember that although Lewis was a powerful communicator he was not an evangelical.

thanks Ron,You need to remember the first book in the trilogy 'Out of the Silent Planet' This i need to do,this other statement is interesting and has me thinking!and it as well to remember that although Lewis was a powerful communicator he was not an evangelical. :-(

With reference this thread I was reading a short advert for a new book which has collected together writings from his favourite authors. It says…But who influenced C. S. Lewis? What were the sources of his inspiration? Who were his spiritual mentors? Who were his teachers?Drawn from Lewis’s personal library, annotations, and references from his writings, the selections in this book bring us into contact with giants such as Dante, Augustine, and Chaucer, as well as introduce us to more contemporary writers such as G. K. Chesterton, Charles Williams, George MacDonald, and J. R. R. Tolkien.Folks will have their own opinions about Dante, Augustine and Chaucer (the last of things being incredibly crude) but his contemporary sources are even more interesting. The advert asks ‘who were his spiritual mentors’. Here are some answersG. K. Chesterton; a Catholic and committed anti-evangelical Charles Williams; another writer, an Anglican.George MacDonald; a committed universalist with whom Lewis disagreed on this particular point.J. R. R. Tolkien; a CatholicC.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien and their friends were a regular feature of the Oxford scenery in the years during and after World War II. They drank beer on Tuesdays in the "Bird and Baby" and on Thursday nights they met in Lewis's Magdalen College rooms to read aloud from the books they were writing: jokingly they called themselves "The Inklings". C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien first introduced "The Screwtape Letters" and "The Lord of the Rings" to an audience in this company.You cannot judge a man by his friends but if these really were Lewis’ mentors it is more ominous. Generally, we become what we eat.

philologos:You cannot judge a man by his friends but if these really were Lewis’ mentors it is more ominous. Generally, we become what we eat.So what's your verdict? Does Lewis fit into the general case, or is he exceptional? :)I don't think there are too many evangelicals (if any) to make friends with in Oxford during C.S. Lewis' time, especially in the literary field?I appreciate his ability to communicate difficult ideas to a popular audience. Many of his analogies and illustrations are brilliant.Theologically and biblically speaking, I would not solely depend on him. Nevertheless, seekers seem to respond well to his apologetic writings though.

Theologically and biblically speaking, I would not solely depend on him. Nevertheless, seekers seem to respond well to his apologetic writings though.Hi SamHe is very 'reasonable' and seekers do find him very accessible. As I thought about your question I reaslised that 'biblically' I am ignorant of Lewis. I mean that his writings don't really have a Bible base. At times they run parallel but at others go their own way.I think I am concerned that his nimble mind in communication could just as easily be unsettled by another nimble mind bringing the opposite case.As regards Oxford, there have always been strong evangelical groups and churches. I think he didn't associate with them because he had no affinity with them.I think my overall conviction is that he is useful at some levels but with longer term dangers. As the medicine bottles sometimes say 'use with care'.

I REALLY ENJOY LEWIS.I THINK THAT HE IS ONE OF THE BEST APOLOGISTS IN MODERN ERA. ALTHOUGH THINGS LIKE, "REFLECTION ON THE PSALMS" MAKE ME DOUBT A LITTLE. I AM LEARNING (THOUGHT NOT FAST) TO NOT THROW OUT ALL THAT A MAN HAS TO SAY JUST BECUASE I DISAGREE WITH HIM ON ONE THING. I THINK THE PROBLEM IS THAT WHEN WE DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE WE THROW ALL THEY HAVE TO SAY OUT. C.S'S WORKS ARE NOT SCRITPURE, AND BECAUSE OF THAT WILL HAVE SOME FAULTS..BUT ALL IN ALL HE IS GREAT AND ONE OF MY FAVORITES

Hi apollosoneI agree with almost all you have written, although Lewis's theology of the atonement, as illustrated in his Narnia stories, would be rejected by most bible students.He is a great illustrator; I just advise caution in using him as a foundation.

It looks like the last post on here was quite awhile ago, so I'm not sure if this is still a "hot" thread or not. Just like to toss in my two cents, though.Greg, if you have not read the Narnia series, then I would encourage you to. They are not just for children, or at least I still enjoy them.My younger brother is reading Lewis like crazy these days, but I have to admit that I get a bit burnt out on his theological works after awhile, too. Mostly, I think, because it takes a lot of brain power to keep up with him. My very favorites are the Narnia books. I see Lewis's "softer" side in them. He really does paint a great picture of God's love and of many truths about God's character.I have to disagree in some respect with philologos about the "theology" of Lewis' Narnia books. Lewis' books are allegories, but not in the same respect as "Pilgrim's Progress". They are imaginative stories that showcase some of God's character, and are not strictly allegorical. Lewis was trying to show Christ's love for us in the story of Aslan dying in Edmund's place, not necessarily the minute points of the theology of redemption. It is as if Lewis weaves his own thoughts about God into story form.It would be very wearisome to interpret everything by pure theology. Theology is very important to establish boundaries to our minds, but God is more than theology. He is love and grace and mercy as well--very poetic, and (dare I say the word?) emotional as well.Phebe

It is ironic that Lewis, ill at ease as he would be among Evangelicals, should be so well read and admired by them. Nonetheless, I greatly enjoy his writings despite my strong apprehensions about his theology (specifically his view of Scripture, notably the Psalms, and his view of the atonement).And I agree that we should not assume that the means of atonement at work in a fictional world are what the author believes the means of atonement are in ours. Certainly, if someone were to read some of my fiction as a doctrinal statement, I would readily understand them bringing up heresy charges in very short order, only to feel quite foolish when they realize that I was merely writing of a world wherein certain things were done differently. However, I believe that Lewis's views of the atonement are consistent with the "ransom to the devil" theory that he also used in Narnia, but I believe Brother Ron would be far more qualified to discuss that, being another resident of that curious isle.

Hi phebebirdI have to disagree in some respect with philologos about the "theology" of Lewis' Narnia books. Lewis' books are allegories, but not in the same respect as "Pilgrim's Progress".Actually, both Lewis and his friend Tolkein were adamant that their writings were not allegories.Lewis was trying to show Christ's love for us in the story of Aslan dying in Edmund's place, not necessarily the minute points of the theology of redemption. It is as if Lewis weaves his own thoughts about God into story form.You are right, this is exactly what Lewis was doing. The 'allegories' as in Tolkein are 'accidental'. Lewis was professor or Medaeval English and the theology behind Narnia is medaeval. This is why the ransom is paid to the Ice Queen rather than as penal substitution to satisfy God's righteous demands. In Lewis it is the queen who must be satisfied, in scripture it is the righteous God who must be satisfied. These are not minor,nor minute points of theological, differences.What do you think about the Last Battle? with the worshippers of Tash (Satan) being welcomed into the kingdom? Would this be a 'minute point of theology' too?Lewis was a brilliant communicator but he should not be regarded as an evangelical theologian, and evangelicals should be aware of this when they read him. He did not believe in the full inspiration and inerrancy of scripture either.

Well, goodness, it's been awhile since I last read the Last Battle... I don't remember about the Tash followers being let into Aslan's country (heaven). I do remember the part about the dwarfs in heaven that had persuaded themselves that they were still in the stable and refused to believe that they were in heaven. I don't think that anyone in that situation will be in the actual heaven, but I did get the point that Lewis was trying to make--that we can so persuade ourselves of a lie that we cannot see the reality of God (a point he also made in The Magician's nephew when Uncle Andrew was unable to hear the animals talk). As I said before, these books are just stories with spiritual truths in them. I wouldn't, of course, think it a minute point of theology to say that Satan's followers are going to go to heaven, if that indeed is what Lewis was trying to say. I don't think that we can say that for sure, though, and, if I recall correctly, most of Tash's followers did not end up there. Perhaps they were representative of those who do repent right at the end or something. We may, indeed, be surprised at who we meet in heaven... I think why Christians (me in particular) love them so much is that Lewis paints such a vivid picture of God's love. Then of course, I'm quite biased, as I grew up on the Narnia books.I don't agree with Lewis' theology on all points either. For example, I have not very often given an unbeliever or a new believer a copy of Mere Chrisianity, like some that think is such a good idea. The reason is the part at the end about evolution. I agree with him until that point and then I cringe and think "C.S. Lewis, why in the world did you have to throw this in???" Oh well... I am sure God has set him straight on it now. :) I wonder what God will set me straight on when I get to heaven... I am unaware of "accidental allegories" in Tolkein--but then I haven't read much of him. I do get the very strong good versus evil theme, but most of it just seems to be good imaginative adventure writing.I am sure that you know far more about C.S.Lewis (you live in England, too, right?). I basically just know him from his books (I've read some collections of his letters, too).

As far as the followers of Tash getting to heaven, he probably means the one Calormen officer (a devout Tashite) who winds up in heaven, apparently because he was kind and lived in a way far more consistent with service to Aslan than Tash, and Aslan says that such service, even if done in the name of Tash, is really done for Aslan. I don't recall the exact text, but that's the idea. Essentially it's a kind of inclusivism, the idea that one who "follows the light given them" can benefit salvifically from Christ's sacrifice despite not accepting Him in the normal sense of the term; this is usually brought up in discussions of the fate of people in areas untouched by the Gospel. Give it a while, and it will probably attain quasi-orthodox status in modern Evangelicalism, similar to annihilationism, if it has not already. Personally, I'm quite wary.

I agree with you that we must come to a saving knowledge of Christ, but there is indeed something to be said for "walking in the light that you have", at least as a start to knowing Christ. I'll never forget meeting a man in Mongolia that told the story of how he became a Christian: His daughter was deathly sick and he and his wife, having exhausted all other avenues and knowing that "there must be a real God out there" began to pray to "God in the sky". God healed their daughter and for years afterwards, they prayed to "God in the sky", until a missionary told them about Jesus and they realized that was who healed their daughter.Of course there are dozens of such stories. God will reward those who earnestly seek him. There are many, though, who are just "good people" and of course that is not enough. All our righteousness is as filthy rags.

I'll never forget meeting a man in Mongolia that told the story of how he became a Christian: His daughter was deathly sick and he and his wife, having exhausted all other avenues and knowing that "there must be a real God out there" began to pray to "God in the sky". God healed their daughter and for years afterwards, they prayed to "God in the sky", until a missionary told them about Jesus and they realized that was who healed their daughter.Somewhat reminiscent of the story of Cornelius in Acts, which would be a good Biblical basis for that kind of thing; someone seeking after God and then a missionary (in this case, Peter) comes along and shares the Gospel.There are many, though, who are just "good people" and of course that is not enough. All our righteousness is as filthy rags.Quite right. I doubt any modern inclusivist still trying to be Evangelical would base the inclusion upon a "works-based" righteousness, but rather try to extend the efficacy of Christ's atonement and imputed righteousness to certain groups. I'm not sure which C.S. Lewis was talking about with the well-behaved Tashite, but I don't think I could discern Lewis's actual position from part of his fiction.

HI phebebird[quoteI am unaware of "accidental allegories" in Tolkein--but then I haven't read much of him. I do get the very strong good versus evil theme, but most of it just seems to be good imaginative adventure writing.I am sure that you know far more about C.S.Lewis (you live in England, too, right?). I basically just know him from his books (I've read some collections of his letters, too).C S Lewis was 'an Englishman' from Northern Ireland, which in some minds would make him more English than the English!If you are interested in Tolkein's Catholicism please read The Simarillion (check that I have spelled it right). It is the 'bible' behind his middle earth trilogy. Both he and Lewis, the latter being an anglo-catholic, use different language to explain creation and consummation. For creation Tolkein has the creation of a song; it is a fascinating and moving concept, although not biblical. For consummation, Lewis has a dance with all elements finally woven into the finale.I use Lewis illustrations from time to time when preaching; they can be powerful.

If you are interested in Tolkein's Catholicism please read The Simarillion (check that I have spelled it right). It is the 'bible' behind his middle earth trilogy.And it is breathtaking :-) Certainly one shouldn't draw doctrine from it, and it does show Tolkien's Catholicism to some degree, but it easily my favorite work of fiction, and provides some very interesting perspective on our situation.A paraphrase from one part I remember quite well :And King Fingolfin, thinking all lost, rode upon his steed unto Angband. His eyes shone with light likeunto the Valar themselves, and Morgoth's minions dared not stand in his way. He strode to the gates of Angband, banged his fist upon the doors, and challenged Morgoth to single combat. And Morgoth came.(Fingolfin fights valiantly, but loses. To paraphrase it in more detail would be almost painful.)Such an act resonates so well with the fleshly urge to confront and destroy the enemy by our own power, and it is perhaps the prime example of this theme in the Silmarillion. But here, as well as throughout the story, Tolkien drives home the point that those in rebellion against God's authority (and/or those to whom He has delegated authority, in the case of the Silmarillion) have no genuine chance of overcoming evil by their own power.