A Partial List of C.S. Lewis’ Published Errors

I write this because I love C.S. Lewis and I am a big advocate of his works. Being that I am such a fan of this author, and I do so much promotion of his writings, I felt it necessary to compile a list of those errors I have come across in my own reading of his works, so that my own promotion of his works does not amount to the promotion of any errors contained therein.

This is a work in progress; I am publishing this page with just a few thoughts in mind to start out with, and over time I will add to it.

 

That Hideous Strength:

  •  His discourse on the “narrowing down” of things using the mouthpiece of Dr. Dimble. He asserts that, only over time did the sharp divide between black and white; good and evil, come to exist. But this is not in the least true; Demons were evil from the first moment of their fall, which occurred before even the creation of man.

Mere Christianity:

  • His discourse on evolution and its application to Christian theology.
    • While I do not mean to imply Lewis’ assertion of the possible validity of evolutionary theory is itself what is erroneous (though I disagree that the theory of macro-evolution is valid, I do not insist that it fundamentally contradicts Catholic teaching), Lewis does nevertheless make a very erroneous application of the notion of evolution to Christianity.

 The Great Divorce

By Lewis’ own admission, this work isn’t really intended to be theologically correct, so to point out each “error” would be uncalled for. It is just very important to keep in mind while reading it. Many of the points contained therein are efficacious for meditation and for inspiration, but do not seek out actual eschatological instruction from this work.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle

  • At the very end of this work there is the implication that Heaven and Hell might be the same place, but received differently by different people. But inasmuchas the word “place” can be said of Heaven and Hell, they are in no way the same “place.” Their separation, rather, is as great as possible.

 

In another work, Lewis asserts (perhaps through the mouthpiece of one of his characters), that “maybe God can change the past.” But God cannot change the past; for that is simply a contradiction in terms, and God does not contradict, for God cannot lie. To make not have happened what has happened is as possible as making 1+1=3, or making a square circle, neither of which God can do. God is above time, yes, but He cannot change an objective act of the past.  If a Christian so much as asserts the possibility of objective acts of the past changing, this Christian can no longer recite the Creed, which rests upon the absolutely certain occurrence of historical events (e.g. the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection), and therefore cannot even really be a Christian. Even worse is to assert, in a sci-fi setting, that it would be even theoretically possible for a time machine to be created, allowing the changing of objective acts of the past by man. If your Faith in the Incarnation and Resurrection rests upon your mere desire that no one will ever invent such a time machine and go back to 3 B.C. and kill the Blessed Virgin Mary thereby destroying Salvation, then in reality you have no Faith at all. Your “faith” in that case would just be a temporary conclusion that works for the time being, not the supernatural virtue of Faith that is necessary for salvation.