XPost: alt.usage.english, alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:21:11 +0000, Adam Funk    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 2015-02-14, Steve Hayes wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 21:51:21 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>In alt.usage.english 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.   
   >>>   
   >>>If Lewis were here I think he would say (and did say, as I recall)   
   >>>that the Atonement itself is a lot more important than all our theories   
   >>>of how it works.   
   >   
   >+1.  I don't see why churches need to get hung up on choosing &   
   >enforcing (in a manner of speaking) very specific models of the   
   >Atonement (or a lot of other theological points).   
   >   
   >>>I don't remember him explicitly rejecting the penal   
   >>>substitution view but instead considered it one of several ways of taking   
   >>>something beyond human understanding and expressing it in terms that   
   >>>we can at least partially understand.  He himself preferred the idea of   
   >>>Christ "footing the bill" and paying a debt on our behalf that we could   
   >>>not pay (which is just as much a Scriptural image as penal substitution)   
   >>>but he also said each person should take whichever Biblical "formula"   
   >>>best helps him understand the Atonement and above all not argue with   
   >>>other people because they choose a different "formula."   
   >>   
   >> Indeed, but I think most Fundamentalists would say that there is no   
   atonement   
   >> without penal substitution, and that in saying otherwise C.S. Lewis was a   
   >> heretic.   
   >   
   >Is there a specific Orthodox model of the Atonement, or does what I   
   >think of as the "less is more" approach to theology apply?   
      
   Rather that clutter up this thread with theological details that   
   aren't really germane to the topic, let me refer you to a blog post I   
   wrote a few years ago:   
      
   https://khanya.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/salvation-and-atonement/   
      
   If you'd like to discuss it further, perhaps we'd better agree on   
   another newsgroup where it would be more on topic.   
   alt.christnet.theology might be suitable, and it would make a change   
   from the URs (unrespected regulars - the spammers and trolls).   
      
      
   --   
   Steve Hayes   
   Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm   
        http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw   
        http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)