XPost: alt.usage.english, alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books   
   From: spamtrap@spambouncer.org   
      
   On 2/13/2015 8:10 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:   
   > Yes, the writer is Evangelical, and is writing against Fundamentalist   
   polemics   
   > that are often aimed at appealing to Evangelicals. The penal substitution   
   view   
   > of the atonement that Lewis was accused of rejecting is basically a Calvinist   
   > one, and accepted by most Fundamentalists. I think that they would argue that   
   > it is one of the Fundamentals.   
      
   Steve, "Calvinism" in America has largely wandered from the Calvinism   
   that Calvin taught.  Your Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa is   
   likely much closer to the original Calvinism than our Presbyterian or   
   Congregationalist churches are.  In American "fundamentalist" was also   
   used to mean reliably old-fashioned Calvinist in theology, before WWII.   
    It doesn't now.  An extreme example -- in the US my old Protestant   
   church, the Restorationist "churches of Christ", is usually considered   
   "fundamentalist" despite believing and teaching that humans must of   
   their own free will accept salvation to be saved!   
      
   Likewise, "evangelical" in America doesn't usually mean "Lutheran" or   
   some church derived from Martin Luther.  It means a Protestant whose   
   theology is basically conservative, who believes the Bible to be   
   inspired by God (whatever that means to him or her), and whose morality   
   would not shock somebody born before the 1960s.   
      
   In other words, you are using words that do not mean to all of your   
   readers what they mean to you. ;)   
      
   To help the discussion, here are the "Five Points" taught by Calvin --   
   the ones called T.U.L.I.P. to help people remember them (Steve knows   
   these; I'm posting them for those who do not):   
      
   * Total Depravity. Means that all parts of human nature are under the   
   power of sin.  One consequence is that no human effort (but that of   
   Christ, who was also God) can have any power whatsoever in bringing   
   about the salvation of any human.   
      
   * Unconditional Election. Means that God chose those who will be saved   
   from the outset, and nothing can change His list.   
      
   * Limited Atonement. Means that God saves only those whom He chose;   
   Christ did not atone for the sin of the unsaved.   
      
   * Irresistible Grace. Means that if God chooses to save someone, they   
   are not able to decline/not be saved.   
      
   * Perseverance of the Saints. Means that if God saves someone, they   
   cannot fall.  ("Once saved, always saved").   
      
   What this adds up to, in my view, is not so much a denial that human   
   free will exists as an assertion that it plays no part in salvation.   
   There is a great deal more to Calvinism than a denial of free will in   
   salvation, of course.  In the US, however, the question of free will has   
   been the linchpin test: a Protestant who is not of the Anglican   
   tradition is considered Evangelical (non-Calvinist) if he or she   
   believes that God offers salvation to all people and humans must   
   choose/accept salvation, and Reformed (Calvinist) if he or she believes   
   that God offers salvation only to some people, who have no choice in the   
   matter.   
      
   Lewis did not fit into either the Calvinist or Arminian camps, of   
   course, any more than other Anglicans, (Roman) Catholics, or   
   (Eastern/Greek/Russian) Orthodox Christians do.  I find that relatively   
   few Evangelicals (American use of the term) fit into either camp these   
   days either, and I'm married to one.   
      
      
   Under His mercy,   
      
      
   --   
   Catherine Jefferson    
   Blog/Personal: http://www.ergosphere.net   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)