Reclaiming the Mind: Eight Issues that Do NOT Make or Break Christianity

I have read Lewis’ Mere Christianity. I liked it a lot. His chapter on morals is simply some of the best stuff I’ve ever read. Lewis’ point was to discuss broad-brush issues, not delve into deeper things - hence the title. The book itself is a transcript of wartime radio addresses he gave, which explains the easy conversational tone of the book.

I understand the spirit in which Patton’s post was given. I disagree with him on everything, but rather than outline my disagreements with his entire post I’ll just deal with one main issue - are we cheapening the Gospel by reducing our focus to a “mere Christianity” type of approach?

I suppose it depends on where you’re coming from. If you’re engaged in evangelism (and apologetics falls into this category), you might not want to engage on election, God’s providence (ok, maybe that one, in a surface level kind of way), decrees, etc. You’re probably focusing on the Gospel. If you’re speaking to an un-churched person, you’ll probably have to go deeper and develop a framework for them to even understand the Gospel in the first place (e.g. Paul’s Mar’s Hill sermon - Acts 17:16-34).

However, can you really disconnect your witness from some deeply held convictions? Are we cheapening God’s revelation by reducing it to a series of simplistic ideals, and chucking out everything that is controversial or that “good men disagree on?” Don’t we have an inherent obligation too stand for what we believe is the truth, and stop equivocating?

“That sounds great, Tyler. I just have one question - why would God destroy everybody on the earth if he’s so loving?”

“Well … that’s kind of open to debate, Jim. Good men disagree on what Genesis actually is saying. I personally don’t think it’s really worth fighting over.”

“But don’t all the Bible stories say He did? I remember that from when I was a kid!”

“Well, yeah … but people reach their own conclusions on that, you know.”

“It seems pretty clear to me! It says it, doesn’t it? Are you saying the Bible is inaccurate?”

“Well, actually, good men disagree on that, too.”

“What do you think?”

“Jim, I think we ought not to argue so much among each other about these things. Christ is what matters!”

“But, if the Bible is from God, wouldn’t He be able to make it completely accurate if He wanted to?”

“Uh …, Jim, actually, good men disagree on that too …”

This is a bit tongue in cheek, but you get my point. Patton seems willing to reduce Christianity to the Cross and nothing more. If inerrancy and inspiration are up for grabs, what in the world do you have to witness with? I’m not accusing Patton of turning into theological Jell-O, but some of his less discerning followers may take his post as impetus to go that route.

I wonder how many Y/E creationists believe the world / universe is 6000 years old?

Seems like a straw man!

I believe in a literal 6 day creation. I consider myself a Y/E creationist. I’ve never believed the world is 6000 years old.

Since when did Y/E = Bishop Ussher’s calculation?

What a shock that it comes down to evolutionism and a Bible that isn’t perfectly reliable. Just shocking…

So, Jim, how old can the earth be and still be young?

He might know!

[DavidO]

So, Jim, how old can the earth be and still be young?

Don’t know but I don’t think it began in 4000 BC

–

I stand on these points:

• A literal Adam and Eve
• A literal 6 day creation
• Sin and death started with the Fall
• Universal flood with 8 human survivors

Michael Patton, for all of his zeal, tends to state the obvious. To me he often attempts to dazzle with fractions while leaving theological algebra and calculus largely unattended. But worse, when he does state the obvious, regularly he is poorly informed or quite prejudicial in his handling and articulation of facts resulting in embarrassing claims such as the assumption that all young earthers subscribe to a 6,000 year old earth (I am young humanity, old earth btw).

Alex,

How do you arrive at young humanity/old earth?

Alex:

Maybe I’m just naive (very possible!), but I’ve honestly never heard of this view before. It seems unique to me. Could you PM me, or just expound a bit further? I don’t buy it - but I am intrigued, if that makes any sense!

[Jim] Don’t know …

Ok. But you claim to be “young earth”. So you feel that at some point there is a dividing line between old and young. Are you saying less than billions more than 4000?

Fair enough if you are, I’m just curious.

[DavidO]

[Jim] Don’t know …

Ok. But you claim to be “young earth”. So you feel that at some point there is a dividing line between old and young. Are you saying less than billions more than 4000?

Fair enough if you are, I’m just curious.

Still don’t know …but not billions

My guesstimate = 10,000 BC

http://oxgoad.ca/2013/03/21/the-fundamental-evangelical-problem

Good read

Also (and he highlights this) The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0„PTID307086_C…

But Andy Efting pointed out a factual error I made in the post. I deleted the paragraph that mentioned Tom Schreiner. I think the statement I cited is in his commentary somewhere, probably in chapter 3, but I can’t verify it at the moment. I should know better than to simply rely on memory like that. I apologize for the error.