CS Lewis was not a Calvinist. He holds too much to the principles of free will. In his book "The Problem of Pain" he states that he does not subscribe to the doctrine of Total Depravity, the first and most important doctrine in Calvinism. If one does not subscribe to this fundamental doctrine, one cannot be a Calvinist.
Wilson simply wants Lewis to be a Calvinist. Lewis clearly believed in "free will." If there is any doubt about that...just read "Mere Christianity" in the "Shocking Alternative" chapter (pg. 47).
Calvinism (with its substitutionary atonement, its total depravity, and its predeterminism) is one of the most damnable and blasphemous doctrines ever to afflict mankind. It bears no more resemblance to the Holy Gospel than does the Qur'an or the Bhagavad-Gita. Calvinism turns God the Father into humanity's greatest antagonist--a moral monster who demands the blood of a perfect innocent in order to forgive his creatures. How wicked! How vile!
Like every other offering from Wilson, this is patently absurd and demonstrates how little Wilson knows about the subject in question. Lewis was much closer in theology to traditional and Apostolic Christianity than to that wretched blasphemy called Calvinism. Had he lived longer, I think he may have joined either the Roman Catholic or perhaps even the Eastern Orthodox Church. He had several close friends who were Orthodox, and repeatedly expressed his fondness for Orthodox faith and worship.
Lewis knew Calvin's Institutes inside and out. I am certain he had read them more times than all the young people today who sport the Calvinist badge like a fad and arrogantly critique Lewis as if they know more than he did.
It what sense was C S Lewis a Calvinist?! If anything he was far closer to Roman Catholicism or at least Anglo Catholicism. For instance, he believed in purgatory!
@bayreuth79 C S Lewis based his theodicy on free will. If he were Calvinist with regard to free will, he would hardly have based his defense of God on an erroneous idea.
@bayreuth79 Does believing in Purgatory have anything to do with being a Calvinist? Calvin did not argue against perpetual virginity of Mary and most modern Reformed person are not...does that make him not a calvinist?
@Baptistnomore John Calvin described the doctrine of Purgatory as a "heresy", so I suppose he may have thought C S Lewis a heretic. Draw your own conclusion.
Walter Hooper, who is perhaps the expert on C S Lewis, has argued that C S Lewis was very close to Roman Catholicism, something that John Calvin certainly wasn't. I am NOT a Roman Catholic, so I have no bias in this respect. I just find it irritating that Doug Wilson is using Lewis for his own ends.
@bayreuth79 I own about 30 C.S.Lewis books.a little over half that he wrote and I read the others. I am not a literary expert on him although in the 1970s and 1980s I was a C.S.Lewis buff.When I read him I never thought of throwing him in with the Calvinists...although perhaps he had stronger views on election than I thought. I cant ever remember him talking about limited atonement for example. He was not as much of a systemtizer as the Calvinists either. Sacramental,liturgical,rational.
@Baptistnomore Many of Lewis's friends were catholic. Tolkien was disappointed that Lewis didnt go to Rome. Lewis was close to Catholicism, but balked at jumping over. He thought the saints could hear prayers but thought it more efficient to go direct to the almighty. It has been so long and with my three surgeries part of my memory is gone......
In "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", his dipiction of the atonement was decidely in favor of the Christus Victor motif. No hint whatsoever of penal substitution. Lewis was an Anglican. Much of his views converge with Eastern Orthodoxy - such as the atonement. He can in no way be identified as a Calvinist. Even as a Protestant. Strictly speaking Anglicans are not reformed protestants. His intellect would have prevented him with being identified with fundamentalist Calvinists.
@saintoI don't think Lewis could be identified with the type of theology that Doug Wilson espounds. Let me back track a bit. I think in order to be a fundamentalist u must lack love, not necessarily intelligence. Altho i think fundamentalism in American Christianity is totally bereft intellectually and philosophically. There are some intelligent fundamentalists. I believe these ppl lack empathy and love and this is far worse than not being intelligent and this is wat is wrong with fundamentalism
@OneFaithMinistries Ok, so you're showing your colors now. If CS Lewis was a heretic...then I'm guessing you're one of those "Everyone's a heretic, except me and you, and I have my doubts about you" guys...
So....who ISN'T a heretic (apart from you honorable self, of course)?
@foucachon No. C.S. Lewis has a low view of scripture, was very hyper-Arminian if you will. He raged against Calvinism. Stop putting words in my mouth, I am not prideful, I just stand for biblical truth. Federal Visionist's actually don't believe in Sola Scriptura because they practice peado-communion, which they get from church history, not scripture. I stand for the Bible. Good Day!
@OneFaithMinistries I believe in paedocommunion BECAUSE I believe in Sola Scriptura. The historical argument is actually the one area that has been the hardest in coming to belief in paedocomunion. 1 Cor. 10&11 is SO clear! It is not discerning the body to exclude baptized saints simply because they "can't pass a test." Let the little children come, and do not forbid them, for such is the kingdom of God. And the Supper belongs to the Kingdom of God.
@foucachon So, you are now saying Baptism saves those babies and makes them part of the body. If you do that, then you are teaching Baptismal regeneration which can be found in Lutheranism and Catholicism. Not Christianity. You are twisting verses like there is no tomorrow. I wonder what Augustine, Calvin, Knox, and many other Calvinist ministers would say to you. I would love to know. That is not sola scriptura. If you can prove paedocommunion by scripture, then message me. But you can't
@OneFaithMinistries No, baptism doesn't save those babies any more than anybody else who is baptized as an adult (and who you would say are eligible for the Supper). I ask you, according to scripture (not tradition), what are the requirements of the supper? (Also, do you believe in infant baptism? That's sort of a given when talking about Paedocommunion, otherwise we should start there).
@foucachon You must be a baptized BELIEVER. Paul said to examine ones self before partaking. A baby cannot do so. Argument closed. Again, if you wish to discuss this, you can message me. But, bring scripture with you. Good Day.
@OneFaithMinistries Where do you find that in the text? You're the one bringing in historical presuppositions. Paul told the adults to examine themselves - to see themselves in the Body...might I conjecture...to see the children as part of the body. Think about it: what was the sin: Communion represents union, and "some were drunk" others stuffed. They were breaking union. That was the sin. I think another way Paul could have said it was, "Become like the children among you who partake." Context
@OneFaithMinistries Read 1 Cor. 10, and THEN 11 with what I said in mind. Think of how Paul incorporated everyone in ch 10, and then bridges straight to ch 11. He talks about OT, then said, "but YOU I do no praise in this matter." What was he not praising?? Some were excluded. Examine yourself - are you part of, and see your part in the body?
@foucachon AGAIN, I said if you wish to discuss this and TRY to prove your view, you can MESSAGE me. I am not trying to be mean, but you don't seem to want to listen. I will not respond to the comments again. Good Day
@OneFaithMinistries Also, requirement for baptism is belief too, yet of course we baptize children on the covenantal profession of faith of their parents. So with paedocommunion. The reformation introduced a tension in it's doctrine of communion. The modern church solved that by going the baptistic/anabaptist route, while other streams went the full covenantal route (paedocommunion). But you are no more "calvinistic" than I am in THIS particular sense. Do you believe in Confirmation?
If C.S Lewis was a Calvinist, then he's the type of Calvinist we need far more of. ;)
In any case, Lewis himself disregarded such labelling either way. His comments in "Yours, Jack" seem to sum up his views on the subject more than adequately - if the man wasn't comfortable in calling himself a Calvinist in life, I don't think we should ascribe that position to him in death. It wasn't, after all, for any lack of study or reflection on the subject on Lewis' part.
CS Lewis was not a Calvinist. He holds too much to the principles of free will. In his book "The Problem of Pain" he states that he does not subscribe to the doctrine of Total Depravity, the first and most important doctrine in Calvinism. If one does not subscribe to this fundamental doctrine, one cannot be a Calvinist.
RacerUnderTheSon 1 week ago
Wilson simply wants Lewis to be a Calvinist. Lewis clearly believed in "free will." If there is any doubt about that...just read "Mere Christianity" in the "Shocking Alternative" chapter (pg. 47).
pkidtim1 1 month ago
Calvinism (with its substitutionary atonement, its total depravity, and its predeterminism) is one of the most damnable and blasphemous doctrines ever to afflict mankind. It bears no more resemblance to the Holy Gospel than does the Qur'an or the Bhagavad-Gita. Calvinism turns God the Father into humanity's greatest antagonist--a moral monster who demands the blood of a perfect innocent in order to forgive his creatures. How wicked! How vile!
TheOrthodoxSteven 2 months ago
Like every other offering from Wilson, this is patently absurd and demonstrates how little Wilson knows about the subject in question. Lewis was much closer in theology to traditional and Apostolic Christianity than to that wretched blasphemy called Calvinism. Had he lived longer, I think he may have joined either the Roman Catholic or perhaps even the Eastern Orthodox Church. He had several close friends who were Orthodox, and repeatedly expressed his fondness for Orthodox faith and worship.
TheOrthodoxSteven 2 months ago
Lewis stated himself he was not a Calvinist. He was totally a free-will person. Read "Mere Christianity" for a more indepth explanation.
logicpractitioner 2 months ago
Lewis knew Calvin's Institutes inside and out. I am certain he had read them more times than all the young people today who sport the Calvinist badge like a fad and arrogantly critique Lewis as if they know more than he did.
philosophy7575 4 months ago
This is ridiculous. The answer is "No."
aznmessenjah 4 months ago
It what sense was C S Lewis a Calvinist?! If anything he was far closer to Roman Catholicism or at least Anglo Catholicism. For instance, he believed in purgatory!
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 C S Lewis based his theodicy on free will. If he were Calvinist with regard to free will, he would hardly have based his defense of God on an erroneous idea.
bayreuth79 5 months ago
@bayreuth79 Does believing in Purgatory have anything to do with being a Calvinist? Calvin did not argue against perpetual virginity of Mary and most modern Reformed person are not...does that make him not a calvinist?
Baptistnomore 1 month ago
@Baptistnomore John Calvin described the doctrine of Purgatory as a "heresy", so I suppose he may have thought C S Lewis a heretic. Draw your own conclusion.
Walter Hooper, who is perhaps the expert on C S Lewis, has argued that C S Lewis was very close to Roman Catholicism, something that John Calvin certainly wasn't. I am NOT a Roman Catholic, so I have no bias in this respect. I just find it irritating that Doug Wilson is using Lewis for his own ends.
bayreuth79 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 I own about 30 C.S.Lewis books.a little over half that he wrote and I read the others. I am not a literary expert on him although in the 1970s and 1980s I was a C.S.Lewis buff.When I read him I never thought of throwing him in with the Calvinists...although perhaps he had stronger views on election than I thought. I cant ever remember him talking about limited atonement for example. He was not as much of a systemtizer as the Calvinists either. Sacramental,liturgical,rational.
Baptistnomore 1 month ago
@Baptistnomore Many of Lewis's friends were catholic. Tolkien was disappointed that Lewis didnt go to Rome. Lewis was close to Catholicism, but balked at jumping over. He thought the saints could hear prayers but thought it more efficient to go direct to the almighty. It has been so long and with my three surgeries part of my memory is gone......
Baptistnomore 1 month ago
@Baptistnomore We seem to agree then.
bayreuth79 1 month ago
In "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", his dipiction of the atonement was decidely in favor of the Christus Victor motif. No hint whatsoever of penal substitution. Lewis was an Anglican. Much of his views converge with Eastern Orthodoxy - such as the atonement. He can in no way be identified as a Calvinist. Even as a Protestant. Strictly speaking Anglicans are not reformed protestants. His intellect would have prevented him with being identified with fundamentalist Calvinists.
brendos444 6 months ago 2
@brendos444 As a Lutheran and appreciator of Lewis I must ask: Why assume that one must lack intelligence in order to be a Fundamentalist?
saintoccasionally 4 months ago
@saintoI don't think Lewis could be identified with the type of theology that Doug Wilson espounds. Let me back track a bit. I think in order to be a fundamentalist u must lack love, not necessarily intelligence. Altho i think fundamentalism in American Christianity is totally bereft intellectually and philosophically. There are some intelligent fundamentalists. I believe these ppl lack empathy and love and this is far worse than not being intelligent and this is wat is wrong with fundamentalism
brendos444 4 months ago
He was a heretic.
OneFaithMinistries 8 months ago
@OneFaithMinistries Ok, so you're showing your colors now. If CS Lewis was a heretic...then I'm guessing you're one of those "Everyone's a heretic, except me and you, and I have my doubts about you" guys...
So....who ISN'T a heretic (apart from you honorable self, of course)?
foucachon 8 months ago
@foucachon No. C.S. Lewis has a low view of scripture, was very hyper-Arminian if you will. He raged against Calvinism. Stop putting words in my mouth, I am not prideful, I just stand for biblical truth. Federal Visionist's actually don't believe in Sola Scriptura because they practice peado-communion, which they get from church history, not scripture. I stand for the Bible. Good Day!
OneFaithMinistries 8 months ago
@OneFaithMinistries I believe in paedocommunion BECAUSE I believe in Sola Scriptura. The historical argument is actually the one area that has been the hardest in coming to belief in paedocomunion. 1 Cor. 10&11 is SO clear! It is not discerning the body to exclude baptized saints simply because they "can't pass a test." Let the little children come, and do not forbid them, for such is the kingdom of God. And the Supper belongs to the Kingdom of God.
foucachon 8 months ago
@foucachon So, you are now saying Baptism saves those babies and makes them part of the body. If you do that, then you are teaching Baptismal regeneration which can be found in Lutheranism and Catholicism. Not Christianity. You are twisting verses like there is no tomorrow. I wonder what Augustine, Calvin, Knox, and many other Calvinist ministers would say to you. I would love to know. That is not sola scriptura. If you can prove paedocommunion by scripture, then message me. But you can't
OneFaithMinistries 8 months ago
@OneFaithMinistries No, baptism doesn't save those babies any more than anybody else who is baptized as an adult (and who you would say are eligible for the Supper). I ask you, according to scripture (not tradition), what are the requirements of the supper? (Also, do you believe in infant baptism? That's sort of a given when talking about Paedocommunion, otherwise we should start there).
foucachon 8 months ago
@foucachon You must be a baptized BELIEVER. Paul said to examine ones self before partaking. A baby cannot do so. Argument closed. Again, if you wish to discuss this, you can message me. But, bring scripture with you. Good Day.
OneFaithMinistries 8 months ago
@OneFaithMinistries Where do you find that in the text? You're the one bringing in historical presuppositions. Paul told the adults to examine themselves - to see themselves in the Body...might I conjecture...to see the children as part of the body. Think about it: what was the sin: Communion represents union, and "some were drunk" others stuffed. They were breaking union. That was the sin. I think another way Paul could have said it was, "Become like the children among you who partake." Context
foucachon 8 months ago
@OneFaithMinistries Read 1 Cor. 10, and THEN 11 with what I said in mind. Think of how Paul incorporated everyone in ch 10, and then bridges straight to ch 11. He talks about OT, then said, "but YOU I do no praise in this matter." What was he not praising?? Some were excluded. Examine yourself - are you part of, and see your part in the body?
foucachon 8 months ago
@foucachon AGAIN, I said if you wish to discuss this and TRY to prove your view, you can MESSAGE me. I am not trying to be mean, but you don't seem to want to listen. I will not respond to the comments again. Good Day
OneFaithMinistries 8 months ago
@OneFaithMinistries Also, requirement for baptism is belief too, yet of course we baptize children on the covenantal profession of faith of their parents. So with paedocommunion. The reformation introduced a tension in it's doctrine of communion. The modern church solved that by going the baptistic/anabaptist route, while other streams went the full covenantal route (paedocommunion). But you are no more "calvinistic" than I am in THIS particular sense. Do you believe in Confirmation?
foucachon 8 months ago
He was an anglican.
HyperNessie 11 months ago
@HyperNessie Calvinistic anglican
foucachon 8 months ago
If C.S Lewis was a Calvinist, then he's the type of Calvinist we need far more of. ;)
In any case, Lewis himself disregarded such labelling either way. His comments in "Yours, Jack" seem to sum up his views on the subject more than adequately - if the man wasn't comfortable in calling himself a Calvinist in life, I don't think we should ascribe that position to him in death. It wasn't, after all, for any lack of study or reflection on the subject on Lewis' part.
ScottyVOR 1 year ago 7