bored has left a new comment on your post "Luther Rocks - All Heresies Begin in the Church":
Lewis may have his faults, but I think that he, more than any other modern practitioner of Apologetics, would pale at the current use of reason to sucker people into church.
Kelm uses human reason to sanction rock 'n roll and popcorn populism. Kelm seeks to employ statistics, psychology, and Progressive strategies to supplant the Holy Spirit.
Lewis, on the other hand, furiously rejected such emblems of post-modernism, and is quite famous
for 'looking backwards' for enlightenment instead of looking forward, as Kelm does. Lewis had very useful insights into the evils of the humanist Zeitgeist of the 20th century. Kelm embraces those evils. Lewis may not have understood or believed the concept that God only deals with man through the Word and Sacrament, but Kelm scorns the notion. Lewis may have had some very important things wrong, but he knelt for the saints of Christendom. Kelm shrugs and thinks he can do better.
I've read Lewis and found Enthusiasm, but Lewis was quick to admit that he was a scholar first and no sort of theologian. Kelm is poor theologian and no sort of scholar whatsoever. Mister Kelm, please do not attempt to justify your teachings by invoking the names of your betters. You only embarrass yourself and make me wish that there was some court in which to sue you for academic fraud--taking my money to teach such crappy college classes.
***
GJ - I never quote Lewis, but he deserves his due. I have many questions about his theology, including his adoption of the anonymous Christian myth (Rahner). However, I do not like indulging in the Syn Conference habit of condemning anyone not in my synod. (I have Luther, Melanchthon, Chemnitz, Gerhard, and Calov, but few others to quote. Somehow they are enough.)
Hurling anathemas can be a substitute for reading more widely. I like Josh McDowell's Evidence as a collection of data, but his main theme is consistently wrong. That is why suggesting Lewis and McDowell is a bad idea for Lutherans, but ideal for Kelm's crowd.
The NPH apologetics book is Kelmier than Kelm, not Lutheran at all.
In deference to Church Mouse and Dr. Cruz, I now resist calling all Protestants "Reformed," because that is a precise term for Calvinists, who do not like Arminian theology at all. One of the Missouri men, perhaps others, used Reformed for all Protestants, so I followed that trend until lately.
One librarian took me to task for not categorizing Protestants the way he cataloged his books. He joined the Church of Rome.
One must also properly distinguish between Arminian (Decision Theology) and Armenian (Kardashian).
All the Reformation theologians began with Luther and knew his work quite well. The author of Pilgrim's Progress, Bunyan, was far more Lutheran than most Lutheran leaders today. Luther's Galatians was his favorite book, next to the Bible.
My efforts are to get people to appreciate the great Lutheran authors and a good translation of the Bible.
