Calvin & C.S. Lewis: Solving The Riddle Of The Reformation

by Jordan Ferrier

Why do two groups of Christians read the same verses of Scripture and reach radically opposing views of the Sovereignty of God and the Responsibility of Man? Starting with what Augustine called the very beginning of our faith, the system of Calvinism is explained from its foundation in the attributes of Omniscience, Omnipotence and Perfection in God, up through the Perseverance of the Saints. This system of belief, supported by numerous quotes from Augustine, Luther, Calvin, R. C. Sproul, James White, and John Piper, trusts in the absolute sovereignty of God. This is not simply an explanation of what Calvinism teaches, instead this is an explanation of WHY Calvinists all reach the same conclusions of what Scripture teaches. This systematic approach using the writings of Calvin, and supporting evidence from current Calvinists, will help non-Calvinists as well as life-long Calvinists better understand exactly what Calvinism teaches. C. S. Lewis understood Calvinism better than most Calvinists. Beginning with the same attributes of God as they relate to the creation and fall of man, Lewis systematically addressed the foundational reasoning used by Calvin to develop his theology. Finding Orthodoxy is as simple as understanding these two opposing systems of belief. This presentation of what Calvin and C. S. Lewis taught, breaks down a very complex issue into a series of steps that interlock in a way that allows for an understanding of Sovereignty, Responsibility, Election, Predestination, and Salvation. Most books describe the two protestant views of theology that came out of the Reformation as Calvinism and Arminianism. After the death of John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius, the followers of Arminius issued a document disagreeing with five of the points of Classic Calvinism. The Synod of Dort was convened to counter these five Arminian points, and issued the now familiar five TULIP points of Calvinism. Calvin and C. S. Solving the Riddle of the Reformation (C&C) is not another simple rehash of these five points. Instead of beginning with Total Depravity, C&C examines the foundation that Total Depravity and the TULIP points are built upon. This starting point is not the authors opinion, instead, the starting point is what Augustine (called the father of Reformed Theology) and Calvin state to be the very beginning of our faith. C&C methodically lays out the complete system of Calvinism, using the starting point of Augustine and Calvin. The TULIP points are shown to be the top of the iceberg in the complete systematic theology of Calvin. When the complete system of Calvinism is explained, the futility of simply comparing the different views on the TULIP points is readily apparent. Tracing Calvinism to its first premise, the very foundation that Augustine, Calvin, and R.C. Sproul agree on, sets up the riddle of the reformation. After extensive documentation of Calvin’s premises, C&C explains the how C. S. Lewis took the same starting point Calvin used and constructed a different systematic theology. The explanation of how Calvin and C. S. Lewis began with the same premises, yet arrived at different conclusions, solves the riddle of the Why two groups of Christians that read the same verses of Scripture reach radically opposing views of the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. C&C shows that the only definitive way to know which system is Orthodox -- to solve the riddle -- is to dig all the way down and examine this foundation. C&C is exhaustively researched, extensively documented, charitably presented, intellectually challenging, and gives excellent answers on the Sovereignty of God and the role of man in salvation.

Genres: Faith, Christian

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2010

Reviews

[Daniel Piva · Rating 1 out of 5]

Comecei a ler o livro muito interessado na conexão entre Calvino e C. S. Lewis, contudo, o autor levou uma enormidade de páginas, apenas para explicar o que iria fazer em sua obra.
Acho isso desnecessário. Quando a obra é boa e objetivo, em uma página se explica, ou em nenhuma, pois ela falará por si só.
Entediado por concatenações anacrônicas, do tipo "Calvino concorda com Sproul" e vários rodeios, comecei a saltar para pontos que poderiam fazer jus ao título.
Entretanto, a cada salto parecia que eu estava no mesmo lugar do qual havia saído.
Sendo assim, não recomendo.

I started reading the book very interested in the connection between Calvin and C. S. Lewis, however, the author took an enormous amount of pages, just to explain what he was going to do in his work.I find that unnecessary. When the work is good and objective, it can be explained on one page, or none at all, as it will speak for itself.Bored by anachronistic concatenations, such as "Calvin agrees with Sproul" and several loops, I started jumping to points that could honor the title. However, at each jump it seemed that I was in the same place from which I had left. Therefore, I do not recommend it.

[John Wells · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jordan does a fantastic job helping readers understand Protestant and Catholic ideas about salvation. The book focuses in on Calvinism vs CS Lewis' (Anglican) view of salvation. He logically and reasonably argues that Calvin and Reformed Theology advocates limited atonement and refutes the first 4 points of Reformed or Calvin's TULIP analogy of salvation. Jordan demonstrates Calvin's view of God and salvation is based upon the philosophy, volunteerism, which exalts God's will above his nature. In contrast, he shows that Lewis's intellectualism is more in line with the scriptures, churches interpretation, and reason. Intellectualism allows for God to be sovereign and man a free moral agent. Jordan agrees with the traditional Catholic view of God expounded by St. Aquinas and Luther's concept of faith being necessary for salvation. It seems a strange mixture but it actually is consistant with Lewis and the Anglican idea of salvation. Lewis advocates a persuasive monergism dependent upon the work of the Holy Spirit and an individuals choice to believe in Jesus Christ.

Personally Jordan really helped me to understand what has always bothered me about Luther and Calvin, their belief that man is in total depravity which always seemed to me to mean the God was the author of evil. Although Luther did not go as far as Calvin and advocate double predestination or Limited Atonement, he still believed God had to change mans will for him to even believe just as Calvin. Luther rejected Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic understanding of God and adopted the nominalist view of Dun Scotus. He believed God was all will and that man was in bondage to sin and incapable of believing; God willed man to be saved, overriding mans free will to give him faith. Luther was right about the necessity of faith but wrong about the nature of God and man.

[Steve Raine · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed Ferrier's clearly written book. He provides brief definitions for some theological terms with which some people may not be familiar. He includes comments from people known for 'fluency' on the Reformation and the points of Calvinism. His purpose is to highlight the differences between Anglican C. S. Lewis and various Calvinists. Ferrier liberally offers quotes to illustrate the different positions held--sometimes, too liberally. I'll leave it to the reader to discover the author's personal conclusion.

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this really useful. As someone raised in a Calvinist household who then moved through evangelical Anglicanism to find a faith home of some kind in more Anglo-Catholic settings this book helped me to understand why I had probably done this. Not because it sets out to 'convert' in any way but because it focuses on a logical explanation of Calvinism alongside Classical Theism. From this I was then able to find the words to explain to myself what it was about Calvinism that my mind in particular could not handle and had rejected. I'm still not sure that I stand too squarely with Augustine as the Theists still hold, and I wonder if we need to implement Luther a little more fully but that's for another exploration! The style of the book is a little academic at times, with a lot of quotations (and I mean 'a lot') so that sometimes it is hard to follow who is saying what, and what points are the author's own, but the logical progression through the material gives a solid framework and a reliable discourse against which it was easy to make one's own notes, questions and reflections. The challenge is probably to not just put this all to one side but to actually try to find my own words to simplify the arguments and my own decisions and stance - medieval, reformation and late enlightenment writing is all very well but even CS Lewis is considered old-fashioned, and who reads theology these days anyway?