I cannot emphasize this enough: [C.S. Lewis] approaches Christianity from the mindset of it being the true philosophy, with a hugely philosophical and literary background, and does not have the Biblical training or knowledge of a pastor or a trained theologian. That means he gets some things wrong. And not just little things. BIG things.

As a result, calling him a theologian is a misnomer. Yeah yeah we’re all theologians yadda, but to refer to Lewis as though he is a trained and experienced theologian is a mistake. Lewis did not add anything new to the theological discussions going on – in fact he ignores many of the great theologians of his day. Instead, Lewis is a translator of the faith. He makes it possible for laypeople to join in the conversation. But, because he has this conversation in a vacuum of theologians and is instead primarily affected by philosophy, it is a flawed discussion.

Additionally, turning to him for apologetic material is a mistake. His arguments, while seemingly sound if you already start from the premise of belief, fall apart if you take a sharper eye to them. Again, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Lewis’ works should be understood. He was writing to give laypeople in the church the tools to understand their faith, not necessarily to create a solid, indestructible apologetic. Sure, he participated in debates with atheists, but that does not make his works apologetic in their very nature.