But I can’t find my copy to get the page numbers 
Please could someone post them?
Also info for Biography entry if that’s possible?
Lewis, C.S. The Great Divorce, London: Cascade Publishers??, 1950??
Thanks! First reference is p98-103 
Argh, my copy of TGD is at the office. Sorry. Won’t be back there till Monday.
But would reference to an extended allegory be enough to show that CS Lewis held to post-mortem salvation? Someone on another forum disputed that Lewis held to post-mortem salvation and I had little to present him with.
edit: this is what was said on the other forum, with regard the quote used on the list of names project
"I have to object here. Those in Purgatory are already saved; they were saved before death. They just have to go through purification before entering Heaven. The full text of that letter specifies:
Quote from: excerpt from Letters to Malcolm, Chapter 20
“The right view returns magnificently in Newman’s DREAM. There, if I remember it rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer ‘With its darkness to affront that light’.”
This is perhaps Lewis’s most explicit commentary on the possibility of post mortem salvation in TGD. It’s from chapter 9, where the narrator first meets George MacDonald:
(My emphases)
As he does in The Problem of Pain, Lewis stops short of spelling out explicitly, in words of one syllable as it were, that post mortem salvation is a real possibility. Instead he gives us this bit of metaphysical jugglery whereby our choice to accept or reject Christ in this earthly life both extends into eternity and exemplifies that eternal choice, were it to continue to be available to us. In other words, post mortem salvation is, strictly speaking, supererogatory, because anybody who is going to repent at some point will, in fact, be ‘empowered’ - their Arminian freedom uncompromised, naturally 
- to do so in this life.
“I believe that if a million choices [to repent] were likely to do good, they would be given.” (TPOP, p99 Fount Paperbacks 1977)
That’s my two pence worth anyway!
Cheers
Johnny
This is a curious one Pog –
Some woolly thoughts
Yes of course Lewis’ ‘The Great Divorce’ is an allegory which is actually telling us more about the spiritual life lived in the here and now than speculating about the world to come. So if the lizard is lust, what are the unicorns signifying? Well I dunno – but I seem to remember that a unicorn will lay its head meekly in a virgin’s lap according to legend, and the virgin will not be afraid (so perhaps the woman frightened by unicorn is the female equivalent of the man with the lizard on his shoulder?)
Another thought – I believe the Great Divorce was written earlier in Lewis’ career as a Christian writer while ‘To Malcolm’ was written towards the end. Perhaps in the’ GD’ Lewis is more open imaginatively to thinking of post mortem salvation in terms of George MacDonald. But later in life he was more open to Catholic influences, and the person on the other thread is quite correct that according to Catholicism people who are in purgatory have already been saved before death, but need further purification before they can have full sight of the beatific vision. Lewis is quoting John Henry Newman’s ‘Dream Of Gerontius’ in the extract.
Of course – although it is an allegory the GD also tells is something about Lewis view of the afterlife being not cut and dried, and that George Macdonald troubles Lewis.
Regarding Newman – he was a subtle mind which wanted to hold together belief in Purgatory, the idea that many rather than few would be saved, the absolute necessity of teaching the traditional doctrine of hell, and the idea that Church doctrine was not cut and dried but could progress toward greater understanding.
I guess a Catholic universalist might argue that Christ’s death and resurrection has redeemed all human beings– but many might not come to fully accept Christ as redeemer in this life.
All the best Pog -
Dick 
All Lewis experts - please be gentle with me. I’ve not read GD since I was sixteen
Yes, that’s pretty much all accurate. Even the conflicting data. 
I don’t recall Lewis suggesting after TGD (which as noted was written relatively early during the period when most of his theological books were written – LettersMalc being much later and in fact the last he would write before death) that anyone being punished in hell, i.e. in a state of mind in which they weren’t yet saved from their sins, could repent and enter heaven. Nothing like that happens in his fiction afterward either, including any of the Narnian Chronicles. (Emeth meets Aslan as one of the sheep, already on Aslan’s side. There doesn’t seem to be much hope for the dwarves, and less for the Cat. The Ape is eaten by Tash. No on is shown repenting after death.)
Screwtape, written roughly about the same time as TGD, seems to know nothing about such repentance (although admittedly Screwtape is written from an intentionally twisted perception of the real situation. It was Lewis’ most popular and best-selling book by far during his lifetime, but one he wasn’t personally very satisfied with; the disparity of which amused as well as annoyed him greatly.)
I’ll have to check MaPS when I get back to the office, but I don’t recall anything there about post-mortem salvation, nor anything offhand about hell – it’s a metaphysical book about deciding among various philosophical options, and then spends the last three chapters porting in and expanding on quite a bit of George MacDonald’s work from The Miracles of Our Lord. Lewis’ revision for the 2nd edition in 1960 mainly concerned updating and improving his argument from reason chapter along lines suggested by Anscombe’s criticism back in the 40s shortly after the book’s initial release.
I haven’t read Till We Have Faces yet, his last fictional work, but I’ve never heard of any post-mortem salvation issues there.
Thanks for being gentle 
Jason
It seems to me that Lewis was, generally speaking, quite keen not to ‘rock the boat’ too much in terms of classical, orthodox theology. He had a strong commitment both to upholding the faith ‘once handed down to the fathers’ (or words to that effect) and to honouring the truth of scripture, especially the teachings of Jesus.
Personally I am pretty sure he did indeed believe in post mortem salvation, albeit in the somewhat non-literal way I described above. But might it not be the case that he never avowed this as plainly as he might otherwise have done, because he didn’t want to contradict orthodoxy - and perhaps in the process alienate some believers. (One might argue that he pursued the same tactics in his approach to the atonement.)
Cheers
Johnny
Hi Johnny - just to say I hadn’t read your post before, but now I have it all make complete sense to me
On the big list, should we move Lewis into a disputed category?
Well, disputed PMSalv perhaps. Not many people dispute whether he was an Arminian (broadly speaking). I think he is less disputedly an annihilationist, but because of the way he approached things he can be read as ECT, too. (From the perspective of the rest of creation the sinner is annihliated, but from God’s and the sinner’s perspective the sinner continues to exist at the moment of annihilation.)
Hmmm … this is where a judgement call is required:
Is CS Lewis better categorised as a disputed post moterm salvationist, or an annhiliationist?
If anni, we’re gonna need a new quote …
Since in his case they’re quite different, why not both? Lewis is awesome, he’s multi-purpose!