Tag Archives: Romeward

SBC Prez: God Says We Need to Shut Up About the Reformation

JD Greear, SBC President:

Basically what God says through Amos is if you’ll let me put it in colloquial language, “will you shut up about Gilgal and Beersheba?” I’m sick and tired of hearing about those places because I’m not a God who moved in the past. I’m a God who wants to move today in your present. I almost think, I’m on dangerous ground here…I almost think that God is saying to us “shut up about the Reformation.”

Source: https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/01/09/sbc-prez-god-says-we-need-to-shut-up-about-the-reformation/

Advertisements

His Lifetime Strategy to Win American Protestantism to Ecumenism and Theological Liberalism

https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/pastorsandpreachers/harry-emerson-fosdick.html

“The sermon became famous in theologically liberal circles within a few weeks. It was published in The Christian Century(June 8) and The Christian Work(June 10). But this was just the beginning. A layman in Fosdick’s congregation, Ivy Lee, approached him. He asked: Would Fosdick consent to a reprinting of the sermon? Fosdick agreed, and soon thereafter Lee sent 130,000 copies to ministers and laymen throughout the nation.(63) The original title had been toned down; it was now called The New Knowledge and the Christian Faith. After it had been mailed, Fosdick announced that all this had been done without his knowledge.(64) Over 30 years later, however, Fosdick admitted in his autobiography that Lee had come to him and had asked permission to publish it.(65) That is to say, he had lied in 1922.

Someone had put up the money to print and mail 130,000 copies of this sermon. At the time, it was not clear who had done this. Also, the title had been changed. Why? Fosdick never publicly admitted why: because John D. Rockefeller, Jr., had suggested the change. Rockefeller had written to Lee: “The object in circulating this sermon is to get the views therein expressed widely read and not stir up discord. The title which I suggest is clear and accurately descriptive,–at the same time it does not breathe controversy. . . . This is merely a suggestion; whatever Raymond Fosdick thinks wise, and perhaps he will care to take up with the matter with his brother, will be satisfactory to me.”(66)

What interest did Rockefeller have in all this? Considerable: he was putting up the money to mail it.(67)This expenditure was part of his lifetime strategy to win American Protestantism to ecumenism and theological liberalism, a plan that he supported with over one hundred million dollars.(68) Much of this was spent during an era in which the dollar was worth at least ten times more than it is today.”

https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/html/gncf/Chapter08.htm

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/interesting-historical-account-of-attack-against-orthodoxy-and-the-church.96373/, comment 1

Feast of the Immaculate Conception

I didn’t know the Anglican Church also celebrates this:

“In the Church of England, the “Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary” may be observed as a Lesser Festival on 8 December. The situation in other constituent churches of the Anglican Communion is similar, i.e., as a lesser commemoration.[14] Many Anglo-Catholic parishes observe the feast using the traditional Roman Catholic title, the “Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary”.”

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_the_Immaculate_Conception#Anglican_Communion

And a famous death that occurred on that day:

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/blogs/entry/4792-lincoln-kennedy-parallels-try-lincoln-lennon/

The Sad Truth About Billy Graham

Billy Graham bw photo, April 11, 1966

Posted by Stormer at Bible Based Ministries:

Billy Graham: Servant of Rome, Not Servant of Christ

 

Billy Graham died on the 21st February 2018, at the age of 99.  He was, beyond question, one of the most influential men in modern history.  It has been estimated that he preached to something in the region of 200 million people, in at least 180 countries and territories of the world.  And hundreds of millions more heard him via radio, TV, film, etc., so that some estimates of the numbers he reached go as high as 2.2 billion people.[1]  Millions think of him as a wonderful Christian and the world’s greatest preacher.

But is this correct?  The Bible says, “Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:16).  Let us examine the doctrines and conduct of this man, to test the fruits which he produced.

His False Arminian “Gospel”

There is much we could say about the false Arminian “free will gospel” which Billy Graham preached.  He always spoke of making a “decision” for Christ – he believed man’s will is free to choose to follow Christ or not.  This is why he held his famous and utterly unbiblical “altar calls” so beloved of Arminian preachers everywhere.  Instead of the biblical truth that the new birth is a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit of God (Jn. 1:13), in which the person is entirely passive, and that only when one is born again is he able to repent and believe in Christ, Graham reduced this mighty work of God to a man’s own choice, whenever it suits him, to “make a decision” for Christ.  Putting the cart before the horse, Graham (like all Arminians) claimed that when one “decides for Christ”, then he is born again.  Salvation is thus placed in the hands of fallen, impotent, sinful man, not God.  It was, and is, nothing but a lie.

It is claimed that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, were converted at his crusades in this way; but this is simply not true.  Numerous examples could be given, but here is just one, so representative of all the rest:

At the Graham crusade in Singapore in 1978, 20 000 “decisions for Christ” (as Arminians call them) were recorded.  But only 18 months later, when a survey was conducted of the progress of those who had recorded a “decision”, 62% of those 20 000 were first-time “commitments”, and only 49% of them (some 6076 people) ever attended a “follow-up” class or a church.  Only 1336 of them completed a follow-up course, and another 850 lost interest before they could be baptized or join a church.  Thus, a mere 18 months after the crusade, only 486 people had continued as professing “Christians”!  And what’s more, many of those 486 were attending non-Evangelical churches![2]

Were, then, those 20 000 “decisions” genuine conversions?  Certainly not.  How could they be?  No one is truly converted by “making a decision” for Christ.  No sinner, dead in sins (Eph. 2:1), can “decide” to give himself spiritual life.  A dead man can do nothing.  Regeneration is God’s work, not man’s.  Those who “decide”, who “go forward” or pray a repeat-after-me “sinner’s prayer”, fall away because they are not irresistibly drawn to Christ by the Father, for salvation (Jn. 6:44).  They have decided, but God has not drawn them.

And here is something else: Graham was not above staging his “altar calls”!  His organisation was known to have thousands of its own workers “come forward”, to create the impression of spiritual conviction, and to spur others to “come forward”!  Many of those who responded to his call, then, were “plants” in the audience, members of his own team![3]…

Read more: http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/2018/03/16/billy-graham-servant-of-rome-not-servant-of-christ/

Roman Catholicism Today

“Protestants” on the Way to Rome

History of the great reformation in Europe in the times of Luther and Calvin.. (1870) (14785672523)Shaun Willcock:

When the Papacy Itself is Commemorating the Reformation, then We Know the Reformation’s Protest is Over!

The one religious institution which should want nothing whatsoever to do with Reformation commemorations and celebrations should be the Roman Catholic institution.  After all, the Reformation struck the greatest blow to Papal power that it had ever experienced.  The Papacy’s vice-grip on Europe was broken in a number of countries.  For the first time since the Papacy had assumed control of Europe centuries before, it experienced immense losses, politically and religiously.

No, the Roman Papacy should have no grounds for celebration in 2017.

And yet…

And yet, as unbelievable as it sounds, this very Roman Papacy, which condemned the Reformers as heretics, which has spent the past five centuries trying to destroy the “Protestant” institutions and stamp out Protestantism altogether – this very Roman Papacy is commemorating the 500th anniversary of the Reformation alongside “Protestant” institutions!

Of course we know that its commemoration is designed solely to deceive.  The Papacy is not truly commemorating it.  But even so, it is astonishing that such a time has actually arrived, when the Roman Papacy could go through the motions of commemorating the Reformation, and the “Reformed” institutions could fall for it!

Who could ever have imagined that such a day would ever arrive?  But it has.  It beggars belief.  Even Romanists are open-mouthed with astonishment at how times have changed.

What in the world is going on?

It would be more appropriate to ask: what, in the dark regions of hell, is going on?  For that is where these astounding events were first planned, and what we are witnessing is simply the outworking, in history, of activity in Satan’s underground.

Read more: http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/2017/10/24/the-reforming-catholic-confession-protestants-on-the-way-to-rome/

Rome and the Reformed Institutions

Shaun Willcock:

The 500th Anniversary of the Reformation (Part Three)

Rome and the Reformed Institutions

The Historic Protestant Institutions’ Protest against Rome is Over

The 31st October 2017 marks the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.

On this day in 1517, an obscure German monk named Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the castle door in Wittenberg, Germany – and sparked a spiritual, political and social revolution which shook the world.  Within weeks the theses had been widely circulated throughout the country and then throughout Europe.  Prophesied of in Scripture (Rev. 10),[1] the Reformation was an event which literally altered the course of history and changed the world.

It is not surprising that its 500th anniversary would be observed by Protestant institutions the world over.  But the tragedy is that what should be commemorated as the time when, in the Lord’s providence, a massive break was made with the diabolical Roman Papacy, is in fact being commemorated, by many of the historic Protestant institutions, as the time when that very break is being mended!  When it should be being commemorated by reminding people of the false doctrines and abominable practices of the Papal system, of why the Reformation occurred, and of the great need to remain forever separate from that iniquitous, idolatrous and utterly antichristian religious system with its headquarters in Rome, many of the Protestant institutions are doing the very opposite.  They are actually lamenting the break which occurred; calling it a great tragedy; wishing it had never happened; and doing all in their power to rush back under the wings of “Mother Rome” as fast as their spineless, biblically ignorant leaders will take them!

Read more: http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/2017/10/16/rome-and-the-reformed-institutions/

Rome and the Lutheran Institution (500th Anniversary of the Protestant Reformation Part 2)

Shaun Willcock:

The Historic Protestant Institutions’ Protest against Rome is Over

Francesco Salviati 007The 31st October 2017 marks the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.

On this day in 1517, an obscure German monk named Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the castle door in Wittenberg, Germany – and sparked a spiritual, political and social revolution which shook the world.  Within weeks the theses had been widely circulated throughout the country and then throughout Europe.  Prophesied of in Scripture (Rev. 10),[1] the Reformation was an event which literally altered the course of history and changed the world.

It is not surprising that its 500th anniversary would be observed by Protestant institutions the world over.  But the tragedy is that what should be commemorated as the time when, in the Lord’s providence, a massive break was made with the diabolical Roman Papacy, is in fact being commemorated, by many of the historic Protestant institutions, as the time when that very break is being mended!  When it should be being commemorated by reminding people of the false doctrines and abominable practices of the Papal system, of why the Reformation occurred, and of the great need to remain forever separate from that iniquitous, idolatrous and utterly antichristian religious system with its headquarters in Rome, many of the Protestant institutions are doing the very opposite.  They are actually lamenting the break which occurred; calling it a great tragedy; wishing it had never happened; and doing all in their power to rush back under the wings of “Mother Rome” as fast as their spineless, biblically ignorant leaders will take them!

The remnant of the Lord’s people, true Bible-believing Christians who live “without [outside] the camp” of professing Christendom, whether Papist or false Protestant (Heb. 13:13), separate not only from the Mother Harlot of Rome but from her “daughter” harlots as well (Rev. 17:5), are witnesses to the most momentous religious  reversal in all history: the headlong rush, by the “Protestant” institutions which came into being in the sixteenth century and afterwards, to now apologise to Rome for ever breaking away, and to grovel at the feet of the Roman Antichrist, while they cast off every doctrinal and practical barrier standing between them and full and abject surrender to the religious system over which he presides in all his haughtiness and arrogance.

It is true, of course, that many of the blessings which were the fruit of the Reformation are still with us today, to a greater or lesser extent, in various parts of the world.  But inasmuch as it gave birth to religious institutions which came to be known as Protestant, and insofar as these once protested against Rome, the Reformation is now over.  As far as the historic Protestant religious institutions are concerned – whether Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, Congregational, Methodist, etc. – Rome has won.

This is not an article on the historical events of the sixteenth-century Reformation as such.  Innumerable pieces will be written about it for the 500th anniversary, and entire books as well.  They will focus on all the different facets of the mighty change which occurred in Europe five centuries ago.  Certainly, the Reformation was one of the most important events in world history, and the more that it is known and understood, the better.  This article, however, is not about the beginning of the Reformation, or its progress; it is about the end of the Reformation, as far as the protest against Rome by the historic, once-Protestant institutions is concerned.

Part One in this series is entitled The Reformation’s Accomplishments and Errors, and the End of Its Protest.  We suggest that this should be read before the present article, as it will place the latter in a proper context, providing the reader with much information, by way of introduction to the present article.

First, we will briefly examine Lutheranism itself.

Read more: http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/2017/10/09/the-500th-anniversary-of-the-protestant-reformation-part-two/

The Ecumenical Attempt to Undo the Reformation

Meeting with World Council of Churches Delegation. Bp. G. Brook Mosely, Sec. State Dean Rusk, , Dr. Kenneth L.... - NARA - 194177

The Burning Bush:

The goal of the World Council was plainly stated at its convening Assembly in August 1948. Former General Secretary of the WCC, W.A. Visser ‘t Hooft, stated the sentiments of the ecumenists gathered for that historic occasion:

“Our name indicates our weakness and our shame before God, for there can be and there is finally only one Church of Christ on earth. Our plurality is a deep anomaly. But our name indicates also that we are aware of that situation, that we do not accept it passively, THAT WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD TOWARDS THE MANIFESTATION OF THE ONE HOLY CHURCH” (The Genesis and Formation of the World Council of Churches, P. 66).

Read more: http://www.ivanfoster.net/?p=5093

C.S. Lewis: A Bridge to Rome

June 20, 2015
By J. Saunders

“It is largely due to Lewis, an Anglican, that I converted to the Catholic Church…”1
–Mark Brumley, President of RC Ignatius Press

“Lewis has been credited (or blamed) in recent years with setting numerous people on the road to Rome. Such Catholic converts have included many of the serious scholars and disciples of Lewis, some of whom knew him before he died…”2
–R.A. Benthall, Professor of Literature, Ave Maria College

Statue of C.S. Lewis, BelfastClive Staples Lewis was born in Belfast, N. Ireland in 1898 to Protestant parents and, for most of his adult life, was a Tutor at Oxford and a lecturer of Medieval and Renaissance literature at Cambridge. He wrote more than thirty books, and his most popular accomplishments include The Chronicles of Narnia, The Screwtape Letters, and Mere Christianity. At age 32, through the encouragement of his devout Roman Catholic friend and colleague, J.R.R. Tolkien (The Lord of the Rings), and after reading The Everlasting Man by Roman Catholic convert, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity from atheism and returned to his Anglican roots where he remained until his death in 1963. Although Lewis never converted to Roman Catholicism, inwardly he leaned towards certain of its dogmas so that his colleagues considered him to be an Anglo-Catholic.

It is obvious, by the support given C.S. Lewis today by some conservative Christians, great ignorance exists about his life and beliefs. Therefore, we have included several pertinent quotations, individually cited, gleaned from both Lewis’s own writings, and those of his official biographers and personal friends, in order to enlighten and awaken. For, it is an indisputable fact that to those who seek reconciliation with Rome, C.S. Lewis is a bridge.

“Certainly the path he had taken to ‘mere Christianity’ was very largely the Roman road along which guides such as Chesterton and Tolkien, and Patmore and Dante and Newman had led him.”3 Patmore and Dante were Roman Catholic writers. Newman was an Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism and subsequently became a Cardinal.

“After more than two decades in the [RC] Church, I have met or learned of scores of far more illustrious Catholic converts who likewise list Lewis on their spiritual resumes.”4

“When I converted [to Catholicism] in my teens, it was largely due to reading Lewis’ Screwtape Letters…G.K. Chesterton and Lewis sort of guided me into the Catholic Church, even though Lewis wasn’t a Catholic.”5

In 1952, C.S. Lewis published his theological work Mere Christianity, which originally began in 1942 as a three-part BBC radio broadcast. As the title suggests, Lewis focused on the mere or common ground he felt existed in Christianity and tried to restate a theology without controversy. The result is a generic Christianity that suits anyone anywhere who can in any way relate to God. Lewis bent over backwards trying to find common ground with all denominations, omitting any doctrine that may be deemed offensive. For this reason, Tolkien disparagingly labelled his friend “Everyman’s Theologian.” Even Mormons find his writings inoffensive.

“He [Lewis] is widely quoted from tried-and-true defenders of Mormon orthodoxy. It just shows the extraordinary acceptability and the usefulness of C.S. Lewis because, of course, most of what he says is perfectly acceptable to Mormons.” 6

Mere Christianity has long been regarded a classic exposition of the Christian faith, yet oddly enough, not one Bible verse is quoted in the first half of the book and only three partial verses in the latter half with no Bible references in the entire book. How can we present Christianity without its foundation – the Word of God?

Mere Christianity is a compilation of four essays, transcripts that were sent to four clergymen to gauge their reaction with regard to its common ground.

“I tried to guard against this [putting forth his Anglican beliefs] by sending the original script of what is now Book II to four clergymen (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic) and asking for their criticism. The Methodist thought I had not said enough about Faith, and the Roman Catholic thought I had gone rather too far about the comparative unimportance of theories in explanation of the Atonement. Otherwise all five of us were agreed.”7

“You will not learn from me whether you ought to become an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic. This omission is intentional. There is no mystery about my position …the best service I could do was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times.”8

Regarding reunification, Lewis said that he “did at least succeed in presenting an agreed, or common, or central, or mere Christianity” and congratulated himself in having helped to bridge the “chasm” between Protestant denominations and Roman Catholicism.

“If I have not directly helped the cause of reunion, I have perhaps made it clear why we ought to be reunited.”9

“The time is always ripe for reunion. Divisions between Christians are a sin and a scandal and Christians ought at all times to be making contributions toward reunion…the result is that letters of agreement reach me from what are ordinarily regarded as the most different kinds of Christians; for instance, I get letters from Jesuits, monks, nuns, also from Quakers and Welsh Dissenters, and so on.”10

In his quest for unity, Lewis had to muddy the waters of doctrinal distinction. For instance, in chapter 19 of his Letters to Malcolm, Lewis suggests that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation [i.e., the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ], which takes place in the Mass, might be just as valid as the Protestant view of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial.

“There are three things that spread the Christ life to us: baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by different names – Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord’s Supper …anyone who professes to teach you Christian doctrine will, in fact, tell you to use all three, and that is enough for our present purpose.”11

“Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object to your senses.”12

Equating Mass [“Blessed Sacrament”] and the Lord’s Supper is not a light matter. In the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church, Article 28 describes transubstantiation accordingly: “Transubstantiation…is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture.” Article 31 describes the sacrifices of the Mass as “blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” Godly men and women – among whom were notable Anglicans – were burned at the stake for refusing to accept this Roman Catholic Sacrament. Lewis’s casual equation is an affront to the many who gave their lives defending the Truth of God.

Joseph Pearce, the highly acclaimed RC biographer, takes Lewis’s position on the Mass one step further in his book C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church, and concludes that Lewis believed that the sacraments play a part in salvation. “Immediately, therefore, Lewis is excluding the Protestant doctrine of sola fide [faith alone] from the ‘merely Christian’” (Pearce 127). The Bible doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone without works cannot be undervalued in its supremacy. For Lewis to deviate here and espouse the sacraments in the work of salvation is a grave matter.

In 1945, Lewis published The Great Divorce, an allegory dealing with another Roman Catholic doctrine: Purgatory. To be fair, however, he did not claim to accept the full RC doctrine of Purgatory, but rather his own aberration:

“Death should not deprive people of a second chance…Lewis frankly admitted believing in Purgatory. To him it was a place for souls already saved but in need of purifying – purging. Lewis felt that our souls demand Purgatory. Who would want to enter heaven foul and dirty? Lewis thought of the dentist’s chair. ‘I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am coming round, a voice will say, ‘Rinse your mouth out with this.’ This will be Purgatory.”13

“Lewis could never accept the Roman Catholic practice of praying to the saints…however, he emphatically believed in praying for the dead. He believed that his prayers could somehow bless them. One must remember that Lewis believed in a temporary purgatory for the blessed dead as a kind of entryway to heaven.”14

“Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, ‘It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy?’ Should we not reply, ‘With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.’ ‘It may hurt, you know’ – ‘Even so, sir.’”15
“A further strong and enduring Anglo-Catholic influence on Lewis was his longstanding friendship with Sister Penelope of the Convent of the Community of Saint Mary the Virgin.” 16

“As Lewis approached the end of his life there is little doubt that he was continuing the ascent towards the ‘High Church’ principles of Anglo-Catholicism. There is little doubt that the ascent was caused by his assent to those truly Catholic principles that represented not mere but more Christianity (Pearce 143). Believing that he was dying, his Anglo-Catholic friends arranged for an Anglican clergyman to administer extreme unction, or the last rites, the sacrament of anointing with oil when a patient is in extremis…this can be taken as Lewis’s acceptance of the seventh and final sacrament of the Catholic Church.”17

Walter Hooper, Lewis’s personal friend and literary executor to the Lewis estate, was an Anglican clergyman until his conversion to Catholicism in 1988.18 When asked in 1994 whether Lewis would have become Catholic if he had lived longer, Hooper replied, “I think so.” Hooper added that more and more Catholics are buying his books.19

“Lewis, it seems, has been abandoned by his own church but embraced by Catholics and evangelical Protestants…Since Lewis insisted on the sacraments and Creed as being necessary parts of ‘mere Christianity’, it is clear that Protestants have to reach beyond their own beliefs if they are to embrace fully the beliefs of Lewis.”20

Contrary to the opinion of the uninformed, the Roman Catholic Church and her doctrines remain unchanged. If you did not know that, you need to read her official documents such as The

Council of Trent or The New York Catechism. These and other sources are readily available on the Internet. You will read things like this:

“Whosoever shall affirm that men are justified solely by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ…let him be accursed.”21

[Regarding the “immaculate” or “sinless” conception of Mary]
“The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin through baptism.”22

“Taken up to heaven she [Mary] did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation…Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”23

These and many other RC beliefs are the antitheses of the Word of God. Therefore, as Lewis downplayed the Mass and other Catholic doctrines in his quest for unity, he not only failed to warn Catholics of their perilous position, he rather did the cause of Truth much harm.

A final unrelated but yet disturbing fact is that Lewis did not believe in the total inerrancy of the Bible.

“Although Lewis never doubted the historicity of an account because the account was miraculous, he believed that Jonah’s whale [sic], Noah’s ark, and Job’s boils were probably inspired stories rather than factual history.”24

“The Old Testament contains fabulous elements. As to the fabulous element in the Old Testament, I very much doubt if you would be wise to chuck it out. Jonah and the Whale [sic], Noah and his Ark, are fabulous; but the court history of King David is probably as reliable as the court history of Louis XIV.”25

So why is Lewis so revered today by Evangelicals?

Considering Lewis’s evident Anglo-Catholic position and the current trend of tolerance among Evangelicals for Roman Catholicism – especially since the signing of the document Evangelicals and Catholics Together [ECT] in 1994 – it is not surprising that many Evangelicals today revere him as a foremost Christian thinker and philosopher. In an article commemorating the 100th anniversary of Lewis’ birth, J.I. Packer called him “our patron saint.” Christianity Today [Neo-Evangelical magazine] also reported that Lewis “has come to be the Aquinas, the Augustine, and the Aesop of contemporary Evangelicalism” (Sept. 7, 1998) and the “20th century’s greatest Christian apologist” (April 23, 2001). Focus on the Family made a similar claim in their November 2001 issue.

In 1993, Christianity Today suggested the reason for Lewis’s popularity among Evangelicals: “Lewis’s concentration on the main doctrines of the church [including the Roman Catholic church] coincided with evangelicals’ concern to avoid ecclesiastical separation.” Nicky Gumbel continues this ploy in his Alpha Course, where he quotes Lewis liberally. Given the theological climate of today, it is sad but not surprising.

What is surprising is that sincere, Bible-believing Christians can claim an affinity with C.S. Lewis, whose doctrine and associations are so evidently compromised. There can be only one explanation: there exists among Christians an alarming ignorance of basic Bible doctrine. Lewis himself admitted his own lack of knowledge in doctrine: “I should have been out of my depth in such waters: more in need of help myself than able to help others.”26 Also, in the preface of The Problem of Pain, Lewis confessed how ill-qualified he was to attempt this theological work: “If any real theologian reads these pages he will very easily see that they are the work of a layman and an amateur…any theologian will see easily enough what, and how little, I have read.”27 I wonder if Lewis would not cringe at his exaltation were he alive today.

Even from the early 1960’s, men like the late Dr. D. Martin Lloyd-Jones warned that Lewis had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement (Christianity Today, Dec. 20, 1963). Unfortunately, the Lewis-loyalty of some Christians overrides their willingness to admit his defective theology. Meanwhile, a whole generation has been infected, and the damage is great.

“Protestants who tend to equate Christianity with their Protestant version of it will find
in Lewis no ally. Which brings us back to Lewis and Catholicism. It is a curious phenomenon, demanding explanation, that so many people influenced by Lewis…have embraced more than ‘mere Christianity’; they have become Catholics, crediting Lewis with helping them to cross the threshold.”28

In conclusion, since the “mere” message of C.S. Lewis is able to confuse people to the extent that they actually convert to Catholicism, that in itself would suggest an urgent need for born-again Christians to wake up to the tragic reality that the Lewis message is hindering Roman Catholics from coming to Christ alone for salvation [John 14:6Rom. 6:23Eph. 2:8]. Even some fundamentalists are treading the same precarious ground, and the evident shift is nowhere seen more clearly than in the Christian seminaries and bookstores of our nations. Today, the market is full of writers following in the footsteps of C.S. Lewis. If Christians continue to set aside the solid foundation of the Word of God for the shifting sands of the philosophies of men, how will Roman Catholics and other needy people be rescued without the right lifeline?

Every Christian book and author needs to be measured against the yardstick of Scripture, for no matter how popular or convincing they may seem, “if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”29 “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”30

C.H. Spurgeon wisely said, “Those who compromise with Christ’s enemies may be reckoned with them.”31 We cannot accept the peripherals when the fundamentals are in error. May God grant us discernment in these confused times.

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth…”32

J. Saunders
Whitefield Christian Collegiate Institute
Toronto, Ontario
June 2008

“Berean Beacon” Ministry Webpage: http://www.bereanbeacon.org

Permission is given by the author to copy this article if it is done in its entirety without any changes.

Permission is also given post this article in its entirety on Internet WebPages.

Works Cited
Brumley, Mark. The Relevance and Challenge of C.S. Lewis. http://www.ignatiusinsight.com, November 29, 2005.
Gormley, Beatrice. C.S. Lewis: Christian and Storyteller. Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.
Hooper, Walter. C.S. Lewis: Readings for Meditation and Reflection. San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers Inc., 1992.
Janes, Burton. Beyond Aslan: Essays on C.S. Lewis. Gainsville: Bridge-Logos, 2006.
Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1982.
Lewis, C.S. Surprised by Joy. London: Collins, 1955.
Lewis, C.S. The Grand Miracle. New York: The Random House Publishing Group, 1970.
Lewis, C.S. The Great Divorce. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers Inc. 2000.
Lewis, C.S. The Weight of Glory. Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973.
Lindskoog, Kathryn. C.S. Lewis: Mere Christian. 4th Edition. Chicago: Cornerstone Press, 1997.
Pearce, Joseph. C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003.
Purtill, Richard. C.S. Lewis’s Case for Christianity: An Interview with Richard Purtill by Gord Wilson, http://www.ignatiusinsight.com, 2005.

1 M.Brumley, The Relevance and Challenge of C.S. Lewis, (www.ignatiusinsight.com), Nov. 29, 2005.
2 R.A. Benthall, Ave Maria College, Michigan quoted in C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church by Joseph Pearce, Ignatius Press, 2003, p.xv.
3 J. Pearce, C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), p.41.
4 M. Brumley, The Relevance and Challenge of C.S. Lewis, (www.ignatiusinsight.com), Nov. 29, 2005.
5 R. Purtill, C.S. Lewis’ Case for the Christian Faith, (www.ignatusinsight.com), 2005.
6 D. LeBlanc. Mere Mormonism.(Christianity Today, Feb. 7, 2000).
7 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1982), p. 11.

8 Ibid., pp.6-7.
9 Ibid., p.12.
10 C.S. Lewis, The Grand Miracle, and Other Selected Essays on Theology and Ethics from God in the Dock, (Random House, 1970), p. 35.
11 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1982), pp. 108-09.
12 C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory (London: HarperCollins, 1977), pp.109.

13 K. Lindskoog, C.S. Lewis: Mere Christian, 4th ed., (Chicago: Cornerstone Press, 1997), p. 105.
14 Ibid., p.135 (based on Lewis’s Letters to Malcolm, London: Collins, p. 15, 107-110).
15 C.S. Lewis, Letters of Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer. (New York: Harcourt, 1963), pp.108-9.
16 J. Pearce, C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), p. 132.
17 Ibid., p.147.
18 Ibid., p.167.
19 Ibid., p.167.
20 Ibid., p.168.

21 Council of Trent, Section 6(www.enwikipedia.org/wiki/Council ).
22 Catholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org).
23 Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 969 (www.vatican.va/archive/catechism.htm ).
24 K.Lindskoog, C.S. Lewis: Mere Christian, 4th ed., (Chicago: Cornerstone Press, 1997), p. 199.
25 C.S. Lewis, The Grand Miracle, (New York: Random House, 1970), p. 32.

26 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1982), p.7.
27 C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (San Francisco: HarperCollins,1996), p.xii.
28 M.Brumley, The Relevance and Challenge of C.S. Lewis, (www.ignatiusinsight.com), Nov. 29, 2005.

29 Isaiah 8:20
30 Galatians 1:9
31 C.H. Spurgeon, Faith’s Checkbook (Chicago: Moody Press), June 12 entry.
32 II Timothy 4:3-4

Link to original: http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles-on-christian-living/2015/6/20/cs-lewis-a-bridge-to-rome