I'm looking for a quote about how an unchristian town would look remarkably familiar - people would go to church, kids would obey their parents and there would be no swearing - but there would be no worship of God. I think its from CS Lewis but I can't find it - anyone know what I'm referring to? Merry Christmas!

Notable apologist and writer C. S. Lewis once wrote that "the doors of hell are locked on the inside". This indicates that people place themselves in hell, not that God places them there. What is the biblical basis for this claim?

There is a C. S. Lewis quote from *The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe* that resembles a famous quote by St Augustine. Here is St. Augustine: > The very thing which is now called the Christian religion was with the ancients, and it was with the human race from its beginning to the time when Christ appeared in the flesh: From then on the true religion, which already existed, began to be called the Christian That quote comes from St. Augustine’s *Retractations* I.12.3. There is scriptural support for Augustine’s assertion. St Paul in his mission to the Greeks famously instructed the Athenians (in Acts 17.23) declaring, “for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: “To the unknown god.” Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you.” I very clearly recall encountering a meme some time ago citing C. S. Lewis’ *The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe* which captured the above sentiment perfectly. C. S. Lewis wrote something to the effect of (trying to recall in my own words): > “You worship another deity but it is the Christian God in disguise.” Or: > “We worship the same God, just a different name.” My question for all of you: Is any one familiar enough with C. S. Lewis’ material (fiction or even non-fiction) to find an actual reference to this quote by C. S. Lewis that I am trying to describe? I’ve spent hours combing through Google search terms trying to find this quote / meme by C.S.Lewis. No dice.

In *Mere Christianity*, in the chapter on Christian Marriage, CS Lewis says, > "As Chesterton pointed out, those who are in love have a natural > inclination to bind themselves by promises. Love songs all over the > world are full of vows of eternal constancy. The Christian law [of marital fidelity] is not forcing upon the passion of love something which s foreign to that passion's own nature......" I'm looking for the place where Chesterton says this.

I read the book by C.S. Lewis some years ago. I would be interested in finding more fiction or nonfiction works offering relatively contemporary perspectives on the experience or functioning of dark forces within lived (e.g., practiced or historical) Christian faith. For example, I would like to be made aware of an ostensibly nonfiction polemic specifying how FDR's New Deal appears to have met the criteria for a work of the devil; and I would also like the book list to identify a fictional piece visualizing Satan in the halls of FDR's White House. The problem is, I don't know how to characterize what I'm searching for. I seem to lack a name for what this literature would be called. For instance, Warnke's *Satan Seller* would be within the scope of my interest, though it is not an apologia or otherwise obviously similiar to *The Screwtape Letters*, beyond its generally satanic orientation. Satanology comes to my attention, but I don't believe I'd want to get bogged down in the theology of Satan. I'm relatively familiar with biblical remarks on the subject. I'm looking more for arguably real-world elaborations or applications - for material that might tell me something I haven't already heard. But what is a name for that body of publications?

C.S. Lewis knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote *The Chronicles of Narnia*, as many theses, dissertations, and books have shown. He purposefully fused elements from European mythology (like dwarfs, dryads, dragons), Arthurian legends, medieval feudalism, mysticism, as well as Christianity when creating the imaginary world of Narnia. While he did NOT intend to write Narnia as a Christian allegory (such as Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress), he clearly intended the Narnian characters to possess analogous moral agencies with the earth Christians counterparts through the creatures's relationship with Aslan and the Emperor beyond the sea. **Magic in Narnia vs. the Bible, explaining to children** Christian children and adults alike obviously want to read *The Chronicles of Narnia* alongside the Bible. **But how do we reconcile *some* use of magic depicted positively in Narnia with apparent Biblical condemnation of *all* use of the magical arts** (see [Bible verses](https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-magic/)) ? When you read the Bible on some days and Narnia on other days to your kids, the natural questions from intelligent kids, especially whose parents prohibit them to read Harry Potter books are: "But Daddy, why is magic OK in Narnia, but not in the Bible? Why is it OK for me to read Narnia but not Harry Potter? Why is the magician Merlin in *The Story of King Arthur and His Knights* a good guy?" Imagine the Narnia children *themselves* (Peter, Lucy, Edmund, etc.). We presume they are Christians on earth and read the Bible. How would **they** *translate* their experience of Narnian magic: embracing the positive ones into the earthly Christian equivalent but refraining from the negative ones? **Types of magic use, and how C.S. Lewis depict them in the stories** It looks like C.S. Lewis was careful enough while the story is happening on earth to *disapprove* the use of magic: portraying the usage of the magic rings for traffic between Earth and Narnia in *The Last Battle* and the amateur magician uncle's dabbling with magic in *The Magician's Nephew* negatively. Even in Narnia, it is clear that several magicians are portrayed negatively, such as the White Witch in LWW and the hag whom Nikabrik invited in PC. That's not problematic at all. But what about Doctor Cornelius who used a little magic in PC, the magician [Coriakin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriakin) , and even Lucy's reciting the spell to make the Duffers visible again in VDT? After that, Coriakin even used more magic to feast the Narians, generated a map of their travel magically on parchment (which Caspian then hang in Cair Paravel), and even "mended the stern of the Dawn Treader where it had been damaged by the Sea Serpent and loaded her with useful gifts." All those are depicted *positively*. Another issue is how the characters and the narrator seem to be using the word "magic" as though it's a morally neutral descriptive term. "Aslan mentions "Deep magic" in LWW. C.S. Lewis labels the traffic between Earth and Narnia as "magic", Susan's gift as "the great magic horn of Narnia", Lucy's cordial as "magic fluid", preservation of treasure in Prince Caspian as "by some magic in the air", and countless other references. **Problem of translation between Narnia magic and Biblical concepts** Obviously the answer is complicated. We probably need to translate C.S. Lewis use of the word "magic" in positive Narnian context to equally positive concept in real earth and Christianity. When Aslan attributes his resurrection to "Deep Magic" it probably means *miracle*. The operation of Susan's horn is analogous to *prayer*. Lucy's cordial is analogous to [oil of the sick](https://simplycatholic.com/what-are-holy-oils/) , etc. Rather than a case by case conceptual translation, **is there a unifying principle that ties good magic/magician in Narnia to a single concept/principle in earth Christianity and bad magic/magician in Narnia to another?** I'm looking for something relatively simple that a Christian parent can use to explain to a child. An acceptable answer has to provide a single (or a handful) of principles that can translate **every** occurrence of magic in all 7 books, either by good actors or bad actors. Especially when the narrator (C.S. Lewis) depicts the occurrence positively, because C.S. Lewis is Christian, there has to be a Christian explanation that does not violate [the Biblical prohibition on magical practices](https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-magic/) .

C.S. Lewis is widely known to have been a devout Christian. In Narnia, the lion Aslan seems to symbolize Jesus. He is executed in the first book in a manner not entirely unlike crucifixion and rises from the dead, for example. Another character by another author is Franklin, in J.D. Salinger's "Just Before the War with the Eskimos." He injures his feet and hands and is also considered by many to be a reference to Jesus. These are of course just two of many, many times when authors have given a character qualities that symbolize Jesus, or when a major plot point is reminiscent of crucifixion. These symbols have me wondering, though, isn't it some sort of blasphemy? In the first case, Aslan is a powerful and noble hero who works miracles. Could writing this book be akin to worshiping a false idol? In the second, Franklin is unkind and has many vices. He seems rather a poor choice for a Christ symbol. **Under what conditions is it actually appropriate from a religious standpoint to create a Christ figure?** EDIT: I see a downvote wondering what definition of blasphemy I have in mind. My source is [Merriam-Webster dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy) : > **blasphemy** > > 1. The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God. > 2. The act of claiming the attributes of a deity. C.S. Lewis fits definition 2, where a character he imagines claims the attributes of Jesus. Salinger fits definition 1, for the lack of reverence especially.

In Mere Christianity Chapter 7 ("Let's Pretend") Book IV, Lewis writes that there is a story > about someone who had to wear a mask; a mask which made him look much > nicer than he really was. He had to wear it for year. and when he took > it off he found his own face had grown to fit it. He was now really > beautiful. Does anyone know what this story is? Thanks

### Background of the question It has been widely recognized that C.S. Lewis's view of Scripture is complicated, situated between two extremes: - Late 19th century fundamentalist inerrancy concept which holds that every word is historical and literal truth (if the passage at least allows that possibility), which created the necessity of six 24-hour day creation, for example. This view is heavily linked with Biblicism, see 2020 article by Michael Bird: [What is Biblicism?](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2020/08/what-is-biblicism/) - Karl Barth's view that Scripture is privileged human document set apart as canonical "witness" until it becomes the inspired Word of God in the heart of believers (see Justin Elmers's 2020 three-part articles on Karl Barth and the Word of God from Evangelical perspective: [Part 1](https://academic.logos.com/karl-barth-doctrine-of-the-word-of-god-part-1-of-3/) , [Part 2](https://academic.logos.com/evangelical-critiques-of-barths-view-of-scripture-part-2-of-3/) , and [Part 3](https://academic.logos.com/assessing-barths-evangelical-interlocutors/)) . In the evangelical circles, many pastors and theologians have expressed their concern that C.S. Lewis cannot be considered an Evangelical when it comes to Scripture, because even though Evangelicals have moved on from the 19th century fundamentalist inerrancy concept, C.S. Lewis's view still falls short of what most Evangelicals hold as the "gold standard": the [Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy) (1978) which is accompanied later by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1982) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Application (1986). Thus we find articles such as these: - 2016 article [The Mixed Blessing of C.S. Lewis](https://sharperiron.org/article/mixed-blessing-of-c-s-lewis-part-1) by Pastor Gary Gilley - 2015 article [Four Things CS Lewis Said About the Bible That Shook My Faith](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/four-things-cs-lewis-said-about-the-bible-that-shook-my-faith/) - 2003 *The Trinity Review* article [Did C.S. Lewis Go to Heaven?](https://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/The%20Trinity%20Review%200205a%20DidCSLewisGotoHeaven.pdf) by John W. Robbins At the same time, C.S. Lewis never claimed to be a professional theologian and never explicitly promoted a certain doctrine of Scripture. Instead, the main goals of his Christian writings are - for his fellow 20th century people to critically see the falsity of modern assumptions in culture, science, and philosophy and to take away modern objections to Christianity - to share his experience in encountering Christ in his journey from atheism to idealism to theism and finally to Trinitarian Christianity, and from then on to aide Christians in their Christian life by sharing how he overcome or deal with his own difficulties with his sins, his longings, grief, his instinctive distaste with church life, apparent contradictions in Scripture, reconciliation with science, etc. - to offer *fresh perspective* through his writings in many genres (philosophical, fantasy, essays, children's literature, etc.) to understand our problem (the need for salvation), the gospel (the good news), and what God is doing to help us (as the agent of our salvation) **so that people can encounter Christ without baggage and clouds of erroneous assumptions**. The Bible is rarely the focus, but mostly stays in the background. ### The Question Given the unease and the love-hate relationship many evangelicals feel toward C.S. Lewis, especially with C.S. Lewis's view of Scriptures (which he expressed only tangentially in his writings or in personal letters, EXCEPT against liberals), **what is the definitive and scholarly comparison between C.S. Lewis's view of Scripture and the Chicago statements on Biblical Inerrancy & Hermeneutics?** The answer should not pick and choose quotes or take them out of context without considering the implied respect and authority of the Bible in his other writings. ### Helpful Resources for an answer - 2013 lecture [Inerrancy and the Patron Saint of Evangelicalism: C.S. Lewis on Holy Scripture](https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/inerrancy-and-the-patron-saint-of-evangelicalism-c-s-lewis-on-holy-scripture) - Spring 2010 Issue article in C.S. Lewis Institute's journal *Knowing & Doing* [The Inerrancy of Scripture](https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/The_Inerrancy_of_Scripture_FullArticle) by Kevin J. Vanhoozer - 2010 article in *Sehnsucht: The C.S. Lewis Journal* [C.S. Lewis on Scripture and the Christ, the Word of God: Convergence and Divergence with Karl Barth](https://www.jstor.org/stable/48580098) by P.H. Brazier - 2012 *BioLogos* article: [Surprised by Jack: C.S. Lewis on Mere Christianity, the Bible, and Evolutionary Science](https://biologos.org/articles/surprised-by-jack-c-s-lewis-on-mere-christianity-the-bible-and-evolutionary-science) by David Williams

I recall reading something by C. S. Lewis some time ago in which he recommends that a person who wants to develop a virtuous, right attitude in some area of life should begin acting virtuously in that realm, even though his attitude is wrong. After a time, Lewis says, the virtuous actions will lead to the development of a virtuous attitude. Recently this struck me as a particularly Aristotelian approach to moral development . One introductory textbook relates Aristotle's view this way: > We should perform acts that resemble virtuous acts, that resemble what we would do if we had the disposition. In this way we build up the right habits. If the disposition I wish to acquire is liberality, the way to acquire it is to ask how I would behave if I possessed the habit and continue to behave that way. (Ronald Nash , *Life's Ultimate Questions *, p. 152 ) I'd like to explore how this idea might fit in the framework of sanctification, but unfortunately I don't remember where I read it. Where in the works of C. S. Lewis does he teach that a virtuous attitude can be developed by acting virtuously?

This might seem like a weird question if you're a Protestant and really like C.S. Lewis . But as a Catholic, I don't see him as ever espousing particularly non-Catholic positions, and he is very well read at Catholic universities. His faith journey closely parallels G.K. Chesterton , although Lewis came from a more intellectual background. Chesterton converted from nothing to Anglicanism to Catholicism, but Lewis never made the final jump. I read Lewis's book *The Pilgrim's Regress ,* and understand that he had a few things to say about Catholics. But in general, we like him, so why didn't he like us? One of his best friends, J.R.R. Tolkien (who was largely responsible for his conversion), was Catholic, so what made Lewis not Catholic?

I recently started reading *Mere Christianity*, and I am trying to figure out Lewis's view on whether morality is taught or is something that every person knows by nature. He seems to claim both views, and I am trying to figure out how he reconciles them (or if I have just misunderstood something). In chapter 1 ("The Law of Human Nature"), Lewis states the following: >This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. Then in chapter 2 ("Some Objections"), Lewis addresses an objection that the Law of Nature is just a social convention "that is put into us by education." He responds with the following: >The people who ask that question are usually taking it for granted that if we have learned a thing from parents and teachers, then that thing must be merely a human invention. But, of course, that is not so. We all learned the multiplication table at school. A child who grew up alone on a desert island would not know it. But surely it does not follow that the multiplication table is simply a human convention, something human beings have made up for themselves and might have made different if they had liked? I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behaviour from parents and teachers, and friends and books, as we learn everything else. He then goes on to explain why the Law of Nature / Moral Law / Rule of Decent Behavior falls into the same category as mathematics, being a real truth instead of a convention. On the surface, it seems like Lewis is making opposing statements: first that this moral law is intrinsically known by humans without being taught and second that it is something that is in fact taught. My guess at this point is that he sees our sense of right and wrong as a faculty that must be developed. While we may know the principles of morality as children, we do not know all of the applications of those principles and must be taught. And perhaps it is a sense that can become sharpened or dulled, so good teaching could sharpen it. That's how I would reconcile those statements based on how in the first quote someone without moral knowledge is likened to someone with an impaired sense. But that may just be the way I would explain it, and I'm not confident that that is actually the way he would explain those statements. Perhaps there is something that is so obvious to him (and everyone else in the world since his target audience was all of the UK) that it goes without saying, and I have completely missed it. So if anyone has any insights into what Lewis has said or would say on how morality is inherently known while also being taught, please share. Thanks!

I just finished reading Mere Christianity and was blown away by some of the statements Lewis makes. He mentions "even [God] cannot produce [a changed heart] by a mere act of power …. It is something they can freely give Him or freely refuse Him ." (Mere Christianity Book 3 chapter 10) This brought up an interesting point in my mind: if you believe in the idea of Free Will with regards to Salvation or a changed heart, you indirectly believe that there is something God cannot do. This directly contradicts the scriptures including Matthew 19:26 and Luke 1:37 (as well as many others, see [OpenBible's *What Does the Bible Say About Omnipotence?*](https://www.openbible.info/topics/omnipotence)) that talk about Gods omnipotence. I grew up in a Calvary Chapel church where Free will was pushed ad nauseam and I was wondering how these Christians as well as other Arminians reconcile free will with something God cannot do.

In the book [*The Problem of Pain*](https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/lewiscs-problemofpain/lewiscs-problemofpain-00-h.html) CS Lewis said explicitly that he disbelieved [the doctrine of Total Depravity](https://www.gotquestions.org/total-depravity.html) despite his - dedicating the whole chapter 4 (Human Wickedness) with 8 very good insights into what human depravity looks like (one of them, #6, is [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/65590/10672)) , and - affirming the doctrine of the Fall (which he discussed in chapter 5 - The Fall of Man) as an explanation of how human depravity came about A 2013 blog article [That time C.S. Lewis Got 'Total Depravity' Wrong (like everybody else)](https://derekzrishmawy.com/2013/07/11/that-time-c-s-lewis-got-total-depravity-wrong-like-everybody-else/) thinks C.S. Lewis misunderstood it: > While Lewis is making a very a good point about our analogical knowledge of good and evil, he happens to do so by trading on a widely-popular caricature of the doctrine of total depravity. But the blog article did not explain further whether his description of human wickedness is equivalent to the right understanding of Total Depravity which it describes as follows: > To be clear, the doctrine does not teach that all humanity is as “depraved” as possible. “Total” refers to the scope, not depth, of the problem of sin. It affirms that there is not a single area or part of our nature that has not been subject to sin’s corrupting influence; though created good, not our mind, will, reason, bodily instincts, or anything else that could be singled out, remains untouched by the Fall. As such, there is no leverage or foothold in human nature whereby it might reach up to God, or present any merit, without having first been enlivened by the Holy Spirit’s power. As Michael Horton says, “there is no Archimedean point within us that is left unfallen, from which we might begin to bargain or restore our condition” (The Christian Faith, pg. 433). Nor is there any impulse or instinct that is not subject to correction from God’s Word. > > ...We are able to do relatively good, yet not saving, acts through common grace and common virtue. Good of this sort is nothing to be sneered at and is a testimony to the permanence of the Image of God as well as the gracious, restraining work of the Holy Spirit. **My full question**: Based on all he wrote in *The Problem of Pain*, did C.S. Lewis really repudiate the Reformed / Anglican understanding of Total Depravity? Or did he misunderstand it and that his view of the human condition after the Fall was actually compatible with the right meaning of the doctrine? Note: If Total Depravity as understood by the Church of England is different than how Canon of Dort understood it, would the difference contributes to why C.S. Lewis misunderstood / repudiated the doctrine? Quotes from [*The Problem of Pain*](https://www.gotquestions.org/total-depravity.html) (emphasis mine) - Chapter 3 - Divine Goodness, first 3 paragraphs: > Any consideration of the goodness of God at once threatens us with the following dilemma. > > On the one hand, if God is wiser than we His judgement must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil. > > On the other hand, if God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our ‘black’ may be His ‘white’, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say ‘God is good’, while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say ‘God is we know not what’. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) ‘good’ we shall obey, if at all, only through fear—and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. **The doctrine of Total Depravity— when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing— may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.** - Chapter 4 - Human Wickedness, concluding paragraphs: > **This chapter will have been misunderstood if anyone describes it as a reinstatement of the doctrine of Total Depravity. I disbelieve that doctrine, partly on the logical ground that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature.** Nor am I recommending universal gloom. The emotion of shame has been valued not as an emotion but because of the insight to which it leads. I think that insight should be permanent in each man’s mind: but whether the painful emotions that attend it should also be encouraged, is a technical problem of spiritual direction on which, as a layman, I have little call to speak. My own idea, for what it is worth, is that all sadness which is not either arising from the repentance of a concrete sin and hastening towards concrete amendment or restitution, or else arising from pity and hastening to active assistance, is simply bad; and I think we all sin by needlessly disobeying the apostolic injunction to ‘rejoice’ as much as by anything else. Humility, after the first shock, is a cheerful virtue: it is the high-minded unbeliever, desperately trying in the teeth of repeated disillusions to retain his ‘faith in human nature’, who is really sad. I have been aiming at an intellectual, not an emotional, effect: **I have been trying to make the reader believe that we actually are, at present, creatures whose character must be, in some respects, a horror to God, as it is, when we really see it, a horror to ourselves.** This I believe to be a fact: and I notice that the holier a man is, the more fully he is aware of that fact. Perhaps you have imagined that this humility in the saints is a pious illusion at which God smiles. That is a most dangerous error. It is theoretically dangerous, because it makes you identify a virtue (i.e., a perfection) with an illusion (i.e., an imperfection), which must be nonsense. It is practically dangerous because it encourages a man to mistake his first insights into his own corruption for the first beginnings of a halo round his own silly head. **No, depend upon it; when the saints say that they—even they—are vile, they are recording truth with scientific accuracy.** > > How did this state of affairs come about? In the next chapter I shall give as much as I can understand of the Christian answer to that question.

*The problem I am submitting to you arises not about prayer in general but only about that kind of prayer which consists of request or petition.... I have no answer to my problem, though I have taken it to about every Christian I know...* ~ C.S lewis

In *Petitionary Prayer: A Problem Without An Answer* (Clive Staples Lewis; Christian Reflections. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1967 pp. 142–151), Lewis observes that that there are two types of prayer, one which he calls the "A Pattern" and the other the "B Pattern". The crux of the problem is thus: the first pattern is given in the Lord's Prayer, > 9“This, then, is how you should pray: > > “‘Our Father in heaven, > hallowed be your name. > 10Your kingdom come, > your will be done > on earth as it is in heaven.'" > > ~ Matthew VI (all quotations from the NIV) and in the agony of Gethsemane, > 42“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; > yet not my will, but yours be done.” > > ~ Luke XXII while the second pattern is seemingly at odds with the first, as in such examples as > 13 "...I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. > 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." > > ~ John XIV and > 7"Ask and it will be given to you; > seek and you will find; > knock and the door will be opened to you." > > ~ Matt VII and > 23"...my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. > 24...Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete." > > ~ John XVI How are we to reconcile these two seemingly diametrically opposed patterns of prayer? On the one hand we are to trust our Lord and Savior to lead and guide us in what He knows is best. This, of course, sounds perfectly reasonable. But at the same time we are told without qualification (except in a few cases where truly believing is requisite) that what we ask for will be granted. I share Mr. Lewis' desire to know the truth, a workable and satisfactory solution to the problem, asking my friends, pastors, counselors, and some (ostensibly) well-studied men and women, to provide some kind of special, as of yet undisclosed insight. But as yet I am not satisfied. The problem remains unanswered in my experience, as apparently was C.S. Lewis'. I have asked well-meaning, though not highly-sophisticated people, to try to provide answers. Here is an example of the typical response: > When Jesus instructed his disciples on how they should pray, he indicated that there was a positive causal role in prayer regarding the coming of the Kingdom. One aspect of the kingdom is the presence of the King, so Jesus could say that the kingdom of God is at hand! Another is the acceptance of kingly leadership and fealty (loyalty). This is imperfectly implemented at best. There is a pitched battle being waged over the seating of the king. Satan has usurped the throne and doesn't want to forsake it. The king of the present age is being defeated by saints who will pick up their crosses daily and follow Jesus and who will pray as led by the Holy Spirit - macro prayers for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven and micro prayers of petition for our individual needs (prayers that stimulate and deepen our individual relationships with God) and prayers of intercession as the Holy Spirit opens our eyes to the needs of others and gives us His heart of compassion. This just doesn't seem to do justice to the question. It doesn't really address the issue at all. All this letter is saying, at bottom, is that we are to do both. I may be missing the point, but to me this letter just doesn't make for a good case. I have been extremely frustrated over this issue, and hope that there are insights that have been gained over the many years since Mr. Lewis' question was first posed. In the meantime, although I draw closer to God in my relations to Him, e.g. in talking to Him about my life, my hopes, and my many other daily considerations, I have not been able to intercede. In closing his paper, Lewis asks (reasonably), "How am I to pray this very night?", and many are the nights I have hit my pillow with the same thought. **Do any Christian denominations or *prominent* Christian thinkers address the apparent paradox of petitioning God, who apparently promises to answer all prayers, while also yielding to His will?** For more information, please see C.S. Lewis and Petitionary Prayer (De Mentor), an overview of Lewis' views of prayer in general, and C.S. Lewis on Prayer (Dr. Art Lindsley), a paper from a biographical viewpoint.

In *The Problem of Pain* Chapter 4 (Human Wickedness), C.S. Lewis says > 6. Perhaps my harping on the word ‘kindness’ has already aroused a protest in some readers’ minds. Are we not really an increasingly cruel age? Perhaps we are: but I think we have become so in the attempt to reduce all virtues to kindness. For Plato rightly taught that virtue is one. You cannot be kind unless you have all the other virtues. If, being cowardly, conceited and slothful, you have never yet done a fellow creature great mischief, that is only because your neighbour’s welfare has not yet happened to conflict with your safety, self-approval, or ease. Every vice leads to cruelty. Even a good emotion, pity, if not controlled by charity and justice, leads through anger to cruelty. Most atrocities are stimulated by accounts of the enemy’s atrocities; and pity for the oppressed classes, when separated from the moral law as a whole, leads by a very natural process to the unremitting brutalities of a reign of terror. Did Lewis ever indicate what examples he was thinking of? What is the “very natural process” by which he thought pity for oppressed people would lead to a reign of terror?

Here is the latest of many, many firmly Catholic websites highly recommending C. S. Lewis books more than Catholic classics! I saw this today under the heading "Spiritual Classics"(specific website to be anonymous). Confessions of St. Augustine by St. Augustine, Little Talks with God (modernized version of “The Dialogues”) by St. Catherine, City of God by St. Augustine, The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis, Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross, Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis, The Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton, The Greatest Story Ever Told by Fulton Oursler, Meditations from a Simple Path by Mother Teresa, Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila, The Way of Perfection by St. Teresa of Avila, Story of a Soul by St. Therese of Lisieux, My Way of Life/Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. Lewis received 3 recommendations when he is NOT Catholic! More recommendations than Augustine and Aquinas. Why would devout, educated Catholics subtly lead people **away** from Catholicism into Protestantism. Why?

In C.S. Lewis's [*Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_to_Malcolm) [Letter 14](https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/lewiscs-letterstomalcolm/lewiscs-letterstomalcolm-00-h.html#chapter14) about different ways of conceptualizing God's presence among His creation, balancing between complete otherness and Pantheism. The quote is after this paragraph: > ... All creatures, from the angel to the atom, are other than God; with an otherness to which there is no parallel: incommensurable. The very word "to be" cannot be applied to Him and to them in exactly the same sense. But also, no creature is other than He in the same way in which it is other than all the rest. He is in it as they can never be in one another. In each of them as the ground and root and continual supply of its reality. And also in good rational creatures as light; in bad ones as fire, as at first the smouldering unease, and later the flaming anguish, of an unwelcome and vainly resisted presence. > > Therefore of each creature we can say, "This also is Thou: neither is this Thou." Lewisiana.nl has an extensive and well researched [Quotations and Allusions in C.S. Lewis, *Letters to Malcolm*](http://lewisiana.nl/malcolmquotes/) which contains the following entry on that quote, suspecting that the quote's ultimate origin maybe from **St. Augustine**: > Charles Williams, *He Came Down From Heaven* (1938) ch. 2, p. 25; and *The Descent of the Dove: A short history of the Holy Spirit in the Church* (1939), [p. 57](https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.217195/page/n71/mode/2up) . Lewis makes further use of these words in chapters 4 and 17. He was using it at least as early as 1942 in letter to Daphne Harwood (CL II, 512), where Walter Hooper mentions the chorus of Williams’s 1936 play *Seed of Adam* as one possible source. > > While Lewis is undoubtedly referring primarily to Charles Williams, the real origin of this saying may be much older. “On the significance and authorship of this prayer, which Charles Williams may have found in St Augustine, see Victor de Waal, ‘The history of Doctrine’, *Life of the Spirit*, xviii (1964), 533” – thus Alastair Fowler in a note to C. S. Lewis’s posthumously published lectures, *Spenser’s Images of Life* (1967), p. 134. Another good 2007 journal article on the same topic [Contemplating C.S. Lewis's Epistemology](https://www.jstor.org/stable/45297136?seq=1) by Norbert Feinendegen also mentioned **St. Augustine** as a possible source: > This last formula, "This also is Thou: neither is this Thou", Lewis borrowed from another of his friends, Charles Williams (who may in turn have read it in St. Augustine) (Lewis, "Williams and the Arthuriad" 151). Lewis accepted this concept as a necessary corrective to every purely affirmative theology (which stressed the *unity* of God and Man), as well as to every purely negative theology (which laid the stress on the *otherness* of God and Man) (*Spenser's Images of Life* 134). Here's the quote from Lewis's "Williams and the Arthuriad": > Two spiritual maxims were constantly present to the mind of Charles Williams: ‘This also is Thou’ and ‘Neither is this Thou’. Holding the first we see that every created thing is, in its degree, an image of God, and the ordinate and faithful appreciation of that thing a clue which, truly followed, will lead back to Him. Holding the second we see that every created thing, the highest devotion to moral duty, the purest conjugal love, the saint and the seraph, is no more than an image, that every one of them, followed for its own sake and isolated from its source, becomes an idol whose service is damnation. The first maxim is the formula of the Romantic Way, the ‘affirmation of images’: the second is that of the Ascetic Way, the ‘rejection of images’. Every soul must in some sense follow both. The Ascetic must honour marriage and poetry and wine and the face of nature even while he rejects them; the Romantic must remember even in his Beatrician moment ‘Neither is this Thou’. More explanation about Charles William's understanding of the two ways to God can be read from a Fr. Aidan Kimel's blog article [The Iconic and the Apophatic: Charles Williams and the Two Ways](https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/the-iconic-and-the-apophatic-charles-williams-and-the-two-ways/) . However, it's possible that Charles Williams himself may have been mistaken, see the preface to his 1939 book [The Descent Of The Dove](https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.217195/page/n11/mode/2up) : > ... A motto which might have been set on the title-page but has been, less ostentatiously, put here instead, is a phrase which I once supposed to come from Augustine, but I am informed by experts that it is not so, and otherwise I am ignorant of its source. The phrase is: "This also is Thou; neither is this Thou." A a maxim for living it is invaluable, and it—or its reversal—summarizes the history of the Christian Church. **Question**: Where in St. Augustine's work (or in another early church father's work) can we find this quote "This also is Thou: neither is this Thou" ?

I was going through *The Great Divorce* by C S Lewis and was wondering how much in line with Scripture his descriptions of heaven and hell are. I've heard very different descriptions coming from saints like St. Teresa of Jesus and they seem to conflict in many ways. Lewis describes hell as the person's choice to reject God and to stay in hell (the gates of hell are locked from the inside), whereas others describe it as God placing the damned there and locking them up. There's also a conflict in the "design" of hell. Lewis and others describe it as a torture of the mind, whereas others describe it as a physical torture. There seems to be support for Lewis' view in the Bible, such as the parable of the rich man and Lazarus where the rich man doesn't want to go to where Lazarus is but rather wants Lazarus to come to him. But also there's support for the other views because it's written that one can be cast into hell. How does C.S. Lewis's descriptions of heaven and hell compare with the teaching of the Catholic Church?

In C.S. Lewis's book [Mere Christianity](https://www.harpercollins.com/products/mere-christianity-c-s-lewis?variant=32123686027298) , Book Four, Chapter 9 ("Counting the cost") there are 2 illustrations that C.S. Lewis borrowed from George MacDonald. The first: > And yet—this is the other and equally important side of it— this Helper who will, in the long run, be satisfied with nothing less than absolute perfection, will also be delighted with the first feeble, stumbling effort you make tomorrow to do the simplest duty. As a great Christian writer (George MacDonald) pointed out, every father is pleased at the baby’s first attempt to walk: no father would be satisfied with anything less than a firm, free, manly walk in a grown-up son. In the same way, he said, ‘God is easy to please, but hard to satisfy.’ The second: > I find I must borrow yet another parable from George MacDonald. Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on: you knew that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently he starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of—throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were going to be made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself. The question: **Which books / sermons / stories by George MacDonald do these references coming from?**