Reclaiming the Mind: Eight Issues that Do NOT Make or Break Christianity
After reading the filing and earlier posts, I pulled a book from my shelf and read the following:
Creation is a theological issue, not a scientific one. Scripture is our only credible source of information about creation, because God Himself was the only eyewitness to the event. We can either believe what He says or reject it. But no Christian should ever imagine that what we believe about the origin of the universe is merely a secondary, nonessential, or incidental matter. It is after all, the very starting point of God’s self-revelation.
* * *
When I encounter people who think evolutionary doctrine trumps the biblical account of creation, I like to ask them where their belief in the Bible kicks in. Is it in chapter 3, where the Fall of Adam and original sin are account for? Is it in chapters 4-5, … because if you bring naturalism and its presuppositions to the early chapters of Genesis, it is just a short step to denying all the miracles of Scripture — including the Resurrection of Christ. If we want to make science the test of biblical truth rather than vice versa, why would it not make just as much sense to question the biblical record of the resurrection as it does to reject the Genesis account?
This is from John MacArthur’s foreward to Mortenson and Ury’s book, Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth (available from Amazon and other booksellers). I read this book during my program at Central Seminary, and I highly recommend it.
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
I appreciate Dave’s comments. Sometimes I feel that some of us are afraid of being absolutely sure of anything. The result is that more and more things that used to be essentials are now negotiable. Maybe we need a few more “Here I Stand” people.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that people in the pews are asking why they can’t just choose the parts of the Christian life they want to live when the leaders are choosing which parts of the Bible they want to believe.
Why do we have to give anything away? Paul chose to give the whole counsel of God. We do a discredit to those who hear us (believers or unbelievers) when we choose to do less.
[TylerR]If you do not mind, Tyler, here is a link to Evidence for God, A Biblical Case for Old-Earth. I do not subscribe to every detail but there is sufficient exegetical, theological and scientific material which represents, in many ways, why I am compelled to view the earth as old and humanity as young. It is a worthwhile read.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!
I have to admit that I was pretty surprised myself at the points that the author is willing to yield on. Some of this stuff is critical, and I’m surprised that he’d just give up on these things and think that it’s not a problem. I don’t know if he’s just not thinking this idea through or what, but I should hope that he will reconsider at some point.
The major points in his post that I had issues with are:
3. The inerrancy of Scripture
6. The inspiration of Scripture
7. The unity of Christianity
8. The theory of evolution
Then to close with this paragraph:
I hope you understand the spirit of this post. In the end, my argument is that our focus should be on the person and work of Christ. In essence, if the resurrection of Christ happened, Christianity is true. If it did not, Christianity is not true. This is why I call myself a “resurrection apologist.” When I am defending my faith to myself and others, ninety-nine percent of the time, this is where I camp. It is not that these other issues are not important or worthy of debate and discussion. It is not as if these other issues don’t have implications. However, none of them make or break our faith. Therefore, we should adjust our thinking and our witness accordingly.
How does he know that any of this is true (especially the resurrection) if he’s not willing to defend that the scripture is inerrant/inspired? That’s pretty basic Scriptural doctrine, and just about every other major point of doctrine is dependent on it.
I would suggest that Mr. Patton spend some time reading some church history and follow the track of institutions and churches that did give up on these kinds of things. In every case that I’m aware of, people that ended up giving away on these ‘non-make or break’ issues ended up sliding into rank theological liberalism within a few years.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
How about reading the follow post to the article under discussion. It is amazing what understanding context can do.
That said, I’m convinced the list of nonnegotiables is longer than some in the Gospel-only crowd would like to assume.
Discipling God's image-bearers to the glory of God.
[Jay]Well now, today we can agree and your point is more than general, it is significant. I wonder the answer M. Patton would give to your question.How does he know that any of this is true (especially the resurrection) if he’s not willing to defend that the scripture is inerrant/inspired? That’s pretty basic Scriptural doctrine, and just about every other major point of doctrine is dependent on it.
I would suggest that Mr. Patton spend some time reading some church history and follow the track of institutions and churches that did give up on these kinds of things. In every case that I’m aware of, people that ended up giving away on these ‘non-make or break’ issues ended up sliding into rank theological liberalism within a few years.
Alex, I must say I am surprised to see that you would adopt such a view. There is nothing within the biblical text to suggest anything more than actual days, evening and morning. It is an attempt to bring science into exegesis. You rightly rail against calvinists for bringing augustinian philosophy into exegesis, but you do the same thing with other philosophers with Gen 1.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Well, to you it might seem it stems from philosophy but that would only mean you do not know or understand the reason for my position which is first and primarily, exegetical and secondly theological. Neither of which are philosophical. My old-earth view is not based on an interpretation of six days.
The article would have been much more useful if Patton’s subject would have been, “Eight issues that do not determine whether or not you are a Christian.” Since there are errors out there being taught I can easily believe that someone may truly give himself to Christ but not believe or understand these any or all of these issues.
However, saying these issues do not make or break Christianity stretches the argument well beyond the breaking point. Yes, some of them, such as belief in an old earth and/or evolution are not complete deal-breakers. However, Christianity would be “broken” without the inspiration and/or inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth, and a few other things he mentions.
I feel like he is doing the same thing as Steven Hawking who thinks that because he can imagine a multiverse where one of the infinite universes has laws which allow something to come from nothing - and that universe created ours, there is no need for God. Yes, Patton can imagine a Christianity without the inspiration/inerrancy of the Bible, no virgin birth, etc. but that doesn’t make it so.
We must work within the parameters of the Christianity which we have and here there are a number of non-negotiables. Any other type of Christianity wouldn’t work or God would have done it that way (or made it an option).
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
[Phil Siefkes] How about reading the follow post to the article under discussion. It is amazing what understanding context can do.That said, I’m convinced the list of nonnegotiables is longer than some in the Gospel-only crowd would like to assume.
Phil,
I did read the follow up article, and now I only have one question. If the author’s point was to emphasize not to get sidetracked on these issues in evangelism, then why not say that? Why say things like:
However, in Christianity, both for our personal faith and our public witness, we need to speak with the emphasis necessary to carry our faith truly. It is my argument that often – far too often – conservative Christians become identified with issues that, while important, do not make or break our faith. This creates extremely volatile situations (from a human perspective) as believers’ faith ends up having a foundation which consists of one of these non-foundational issues. When and if these issues are significantly challenged, our faith becomes unstable. I have seen too many people who walk away from the faith due to their trust in some non-essential issue coming unglued. That is why I write this post.
Here is a list of what I believe to be eight issues that do not make or break our faith…
I hope you understand the spirit of this post. In the end, my argument is that our focus should be on the person and work of Christ. In essence, if the resurrection of Christ happened, Christianity is true. If it did not, Christianity is not true. This is why I call myself a “resurrection apologist.”
If he wants to be a “resurrection apologist”, that’s fine. If he wants to be an evangelist and write about witnessing experiences and tips, that’s fine too. But at a bare minimum, he’s going to need to be clearer in his communication if this article is about witnessing strategy, especially in light of that opening paragraph or two. He’s clearly arguing that Christians can come unglued when challenged on ‘some non-essential issue’. He clearly states that ‘a denial of this doctrine is not a test of one’s status before God’ (Point #3).
He continues in the same vein in his comments, when he writes (Comment 7)-
No. I don’t believe the virgin birth is tied so closely with person and work of Christ that it qualifies. Important? Definitely. But frankly we don’t know exactly why Jesus had to be born of a Virgin. We THINK that it has to do with his association with original sin and guilt, but we don’t know. And had Matt and Luke left out this bit of info, the Gospel would remain as it is. Now, if you are asking why Jesus HAD to be born of a virgin, you are asking the wrong man. We can find that out in glory. Does that help?
So either he’s blissfully ignorant of Romans 5 and Hebrews 7:11-28, or he’s just not paying attention. Or something.
FWIW, I agree with his tactic of pushing the Bible back at the atheist and telling him to read it anyway; I would like to handle similar situations in the future if they come my way. I’m not breaking out torches and pitchforks to burn the guy at the stake. I think that he needs to be clearer, or I think he ought to take the article down because there is clearly a significant level of confusion about what he meant.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I have been ruminating on Patton’s article for the past day or so. I just cannot understand why somebody would be willing to throw out so much. This goes back to the courage of convictions - don’t Christians believe in anything anymore? Mere Christianity is kindergarten stuff. I am glad that God has blessed Patton as he has witnessed to people, but he has to stand on something, doesn’t he? I cannot ever imagine evangelizing and always seeking to steer every conversation to the historicity of the resurrection.
Mere Christianity does produce theological Jell-O. There is more to the Bible than 1 Cor 15. If God just wanted us to focus exclusively on the resurrection, perhaps He wouldn’t have given us the other 65.9 books in the Bible?
Patton is a smart guy. God has used him to build a very unique ministry. He should know better.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I think a literal, 6-day Creation is important for at least one key theological reason. After God created, it was very good. But then, Genesis 3. Prior to sin, we believe there was no death. Evolution requires death, lots of death, lots of trial and error, lots of the results of sin. Romans 5:12
Or do theistic evolutionists hold that survival of the fittest was in tact prior to man’s fall, but man was exempt prior to the fall? Gets a bit tricky.
Discussion