“Did CS Lewis go to heaven?” is the title of a provocative monograph published back in 2003. You can read it here. Its provocative conclusion is:
So we ask again: Did C. S. Lewis go to Heaven? And our answer must be: Not if he believed what he wrote in his books and letters.
To say that I disagree with paper would be an understatement. However, this paper does make it plain that the true Restorationist Calvinist in the USA does not believe that many will be saved. The Trinity Foundation, at which the monograph was published, makes it clear that:
The fundamental crisis of the twentieth century is neither political, nor social, nor economic. It is intellectual, and the primary intellectual problem is neither metaphysical nor ethical: It is epistemological. No attempt to solve the various problems and end the seemingly interminable crises of the twentieth century will be successful unless it is recognized that the justification of knowledge is always the ultimate problem, and that unless this problem is solved, no other problem can be.
But, apparently, its insistence of correct knowledge and the correct doctrine that flows from it is so high that it makes it impossible for a person to be saved unless they hold a significant number of doctrines to be true. I will point out that the Church, from before the Great Schism, in fact from before Chalcedon, held the Nicene Creed to be the standard of belief of those things that must be held. It wisely kept from defining certain areas of doctrine, for instance simply saying that we must believe that the Lord will come back, but not necessarily how or when.
Mind you, it is true that the Church did speak about other doctrines. And, I am not limiting the Church’s authority to speak about doctrine authoritatively only to the Nicene Creed. Nevertheless, the Nicene Creed is the gold standard. This is why those baptized under a Trinitarian formula in a Christian group that holds to the Nicene Creed are not re-baptized. This is why the Orthodox will say that there is no salvation outside the Church, but will then immediately turn around, like St. Augustine in the fourth century, and comment on how many believers are outside the Church and how many devils inside. St. Augustine clearly believed and taught that there is no salvation outside the Church, but, like many of the Early Church Fathers, also held that there were those, who in some mysterious way, somehow participated in the Church, by God’s providence and mercy. This same idea was reiterated by the Roman Catholic Church as a result of Vatican Council II. As an Orthodox, I can applaud that statement. The Church is neither invisible nor broken into pieces. There is one Church and a great big mystery which we cannot fully fathom. That great big mystery simply says that we cannot fully understand God, and, since the Church is the Body of Christ, it is not the least bit surprising that we cannot fully understand the Church.
But, the Trinity Foundation has gone far outside the gold standard, and made the Church as dependent on believing in multiple overly-defined doctrines as the Roman Church was back after the Reformation and before Vatican Council II. In fact, as one can see from reading this monograph, many of the Evangelical heroes who are read by many Protestants (and Romans and Orthodox) would probably not make it pass the Final Judgment. In fact, I wonder just how many would actually make it?
Hi, I’m an “unchurched” seventeen year-old seriously considering joining the Orthodox Church. After a year of self-studied Christian theology, I’ve come to the conclusion that the Orthodox church best follows what the early Christians believed. However, little is written about original sin and total depravity, and I’ve been hoping I could find a commentary on theosis that would include those topics (to no avail). Personally, I subscribe to the semipelagianist views of John Cassian because they seem the most logical (however, I might change my opinion if proven wrong……..maybe).
Anyway, I’m rambling. I found your site and seeing as you have the knowledge/authority to give me an answer, I thought I’d ask what the Orthodox views of original sin and total depravity are.
There was an Orthodox synod in Jerusalem in 1672. While it was not an Ecumenical Council, nevertheless, it is accepted by the Orthodox as generally expressing the mind of Orthodoxy as regards the Protestant Reformation. Having said that, it does not mean that every Orthodox hierarch, priest, deacon, or theologian agrees with every bit of it. But, all of us do agree with almost every part of it.
That synod accepted the Confession of Dositheus as expressing the mind of the Church. And, that confession deals with some of your questions. Some of the statements of the Confession on works are a little controversial among us. Nevertheless, it is a reliable confession.
Go to http://www.cresourcei.org/creeddositheus.html to read it.
Thank you. Decree 16 sounds very Augustinian and almost seems out of place amongst statements refuting newer Western beliefs.
And there are many Orthodox who would dispute with Dositheus on the wording and theology that he used in that decree. They would say that he ought not to have said that an unbaptized baby cannot enter heaven, that he went too far in that decree. But, they would agree that baptism is necessary for entrance into the Kingdom. How they resolve those two statements is the subject of much ink. 🙂
Christ is risen!
Wow. I’m not sure I can even read the whole article. Of course, I may have gotten hung up on that whole “Antichristian notion that God loves all men and desires to save all…” part toward the beginning. I felt rather queasy after that and I may have gone cross-eyed.
If this is what true Evangelicalism is, then I agree with the author that most evangelicals are not true evangelicals.
Of course, I’ve often been amazed by how “Orthodox” Lewis was. For the author to question Lewis’ salvation and equate salvation with being an evangelical is pretty bold. Thanks for posting this. It was quite thought-provoking. Perhaps I’ll make it to the end.
I hope your surgery goes well. Lord have mercy.
Heh heh, that is why I carefully labeled it as Restorationist Calvinism. Some would consider them a subset of Evangelicalism, but some would say that they are not Evangelicals but a subset of Reformation Protestantism. Hmm, scholars just love to come up with terms and categorizations. 🙂
N.T. Wright spoiled me for these sorts of arguments; I just don’t want to put out the energy for this anymore, both trying to reconcile such with a God who is love, and taking up time I’d rather be using doing other things.
Also praying for you for the surgery.
William, this article is an explanation rather than any kind of refutation or argument, but it’s what “flipped the switch” for me with regard to being able to see a “doctrinal” home for myself in Orthodoxy:
http://www.antiochian.org/assets/asset_manager/da42e6049df1d08bff1865c1ac19e759.pdf
Dana
Fr Ernesto,
What is done here I have talked about before, elsewhere: These “calvinists” introduce a new error, that shows the most amazing incinsistency in their own theology: Being Calvinist, the subscribe to the “Sola’s” – sola fide, sola gratia etc etc. But for them, the sola fide (by faith alone) is different: no longer is it faith in Christ that counts, but believing in the correct doctrine. This is an abysmal error that is quite simply heresy, and supercedes anything they will accuse the rest of Christianity (Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox and others) of.
But be warned – mr Robbins is generally viewed, even (and especially) by his Calvinist bretheren, as the extreme lunatic fringe of that theology. In fact, I have seen arguments and statements eminating from that camp (some years ago, when I still considered myself Calvinistic) that probably places him and his 1.5 followers well beyond even a very generous consideration of what can be called Nicean Orthodoxy (following your convention in the post).
Please be advised that this kind of wacko stuff does not reflect the viewpoint of any Calvinists churches I know of. In fact, they think that all Calvinists but them are going to Hell.
The robust, optimistic Calivinism that is revitalizing much of the American church today is more reflective of Tim Keller’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York, and hundreds of other Redeemer model churches.
Keller (and my Calvinist pastor) sites Lewis frequently in his preaching. You might also be amused to know that Robert Letham, an ordained Orthodox Presbyterian pastor has written a very even-handed book contrasting EO and the Reformed church.
See here: http://www.amazon.com/Through-Western-Eyes-Orthodoxy-Perspective/dp/1845502477/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240439770&sr=1-4
That is why I was so careful to label them as Restorationist Calvinist and called them a subset. My points were not against Calvinism in general but against the particular subset of Calvinism reflected in those folk.