I took my time going through this one so I didn't miss anything. I read this shortly after reading another apologetics book, so it was kind of like a review over the same information, but with a few different perspectives.
I am so happy I stumbled across this book. It covers all the basics of why we Christians believe what we believe, and it breaks it down in such simple language. Some apologetics books are written in such a way where you need a dictionary and a notebook and pen beside you in order to tackle them, but this one broke it down so simply that it was so easy to comprehend! If you are new to the faith, new to defending your faith or want some simple and fast answers, I recommend starting with this book. Paul E. Little had an excellent writing style, one that warmly engages and draws you in, mixing stories about what happened in his life with different encounters along with the evidence as to why we believe. Some things opened my eyes to a new perspective, too.
I wouldn't say that this book is advanced by any means...you can go deeper. Much deeper. It gives you a bullet point, cursory glance, kind of like a statement of faith with a few paragraphs to back up why. A gentle introduction, an informative guide, I would love to see more Christians reading this one.
There are only a few things that I disagreed with in the book. I'll touch on them here. One of which was the Sabbath and how he mentioned that Christians said the shift from Saturday as the "day of worship" to Sunday came because they wanted to celebrate the day Jesus rose from the dead. I encourage anyone reading that or believing that to study the roots of the Sabbath being changed from Saturday to Sunday a little deeper and learn for themselves, not to just take tradition's word on it. It goes deeper than that, and it's based off a single verse in Acts that might need a second glance when studying the Sabbath.
The second isn't necessarily something I disagree with, but I'd be careful with the wording. When talking about God and "Does Christianity Differ From Other World Religions," I'll just quote:
"The Jewish concept of God is the closet of all to the Christian. isn't the God whom they worship the God of the Old Testament, which we accept? Surely we can get together on this! Again, however, closer examination shows that the majority of Jews do not admit their God is the Father of Jesus Christ." (Page 196)
The paragraph goes on, and I guess he's not necessarily saying we don't worship the same God, and again, I get where he's coming from... Some Jews don't believe in Jesus (Yeshua) as their Messiah. But I think that we should talk about it from that angle (That they worship the God of the OT, but they don't believe in Messiah Yeshua (Jesus)) rather than stating it like that to make the reader question whether or not they worship the God of the OT and that He's the same God. Anyway, I'm babbling. I'm not angry about it, I get where he's coming from, but I take caution with the wording.
The third thing I disagreed with was the age of the earth, where I feel like he didn't give a satisfactory answer. "In matters where God chooses to be silent, we should likewise choose to remain silent." (Page 159) He also includes a quote by Kantzer, "As Biblical students, therefore, we must remain agnostic about the age of the earth. We have no biblical warrant for ruling out the validity of the commonly accepted geological timetable. Let scientists battle it out on the basis of the scientific evidence, but we should not bolster weak scientific positions with misrepresentations of the Bible conjured up for that purpose. God rarely sees fit merely to gratify our curiosity." (Also page 159) No, no, this is one point that I take a firm stand of disagreement on. It's how we ended up in this mess in the first place: scientists replacing God. As Christians, we CAN produce scientific arguments that are no weak, in accordance with the geologic timetable. Actually, as I'm learning from another study, the evidence is quite strong in the geologic time table that the earth isn't actually millions of years old, but young. So therefore, I disagree wholeheartedly with the paragraph because if we as Christians do not take a stand against the uniformitatian concepts that arise from the geologic rock record, we are stepping aside and allowing people to replace God as Creator. We must not remain agnostic and just accept the ideas as fact, but study them out for ourselves.
But one thing I will say in defense of this is the book was published in 1967 (First Edition) during a time when these geologic timetable concepts were new and Christians saw no need to refute them. We have learned so much since then. So to anyone reading it, I encourage you to study both sides and decide for yourself.
That's really all I disagreed with. No reason to throw the book out, those are just my thoughts. And I reiterate that...these are just my thoughts. I recommend this as a guide, a simple version of some of the more brain-taxing books that have been on my TBR this year. Thanks for sticking with me!