Originally Posted by Tom
Perhaps you might want to deal with what the critique actually says?

Alright Tom, I thought I was making a point that given what DeYoung says in the article here:
Quote
C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity is a classic. It is a winsome, thoughtful, well-written defense of the Christian faith. Some of its better known sections–like the famous liar, lunatic, Lord, trilemma–have become part of the way evangelicals think and speak. No doubt God has used Lewis and Mere Christianity to awaken affections for Christ, engage the mind for Christ, and remove obstacles for the Spirit to draw people to Christ. I’m thankful for all this. More than that, I’ve benefited from every Lewis book I’ve read.


Red flags should have gone up for you. My post mentioned that Lewis did not have an orthodox view of Scripture. He did not hold to its inerrancy for instance. So whatever anyone says about the value of Lewis' work as fiction, his theology is not to be trusted. And given that DeYoung for reason of the views expressed in his blog as well as for others, DeYoung should be read with great discernment. From what I have read thus far, he is not to be trusted.

So now, your point is?
Originally Posted by Tom
…yet I also don't think he takes a strong enough stances against the book. He misses the mark I think.
Thank you for reminding us of why we should question anything that DeYoung and the GCC says or does.

The Chestnut Mare