• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

The scandal of the evangelical heart and mind

Why is it troubling to raise troubling questions then try to answer them? Seems completely sensible to me; have questions, go find answers, share answers. As for original sin, I think he's right; that sin (or the consequences of Adam and Eve's actions being passed down to all of humanity) is not in the Genesis text or the Bible except for Paul. It's only natural to ask where has Paul got it from because he didn't get it from the scripture he had at the time. People say "oh he got it from the spirit" but I've seen countless times where others have said that then got shouted down because they couldn't support it with scripture!!

Everyone has their critics, D.A Carson has his I'm sure. I don't like Peter Enns because of his scholarship I like him because he is prepared to go after the difficult questions then try to answer them, he doesn't accept "because it's in the Bible" as the only answer and doesn't automatically reject different views simply because they are different. He's challenging traditional views and asking the very legitimate question; are they right? After all, isn't that what you're doing with him?

I'm sure Peter Enns has addressed Carsons views but couldn't find it but have other times when he's addressed his critics;

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/petere...er-critical-reviews/a-response-to-paul-helms/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/petere...critical-reviews/a-response-to-richard-pratt/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/petere...ritics/responding-to-some-general-criticisms/

The fact he has critics is a non starter for crticizing him because as I said, everyone has them but as usual, Peter Enns is able to put it much more succinctly than me:

Disagreement is what happens in scholarship. If disagreement were a barometer of truth, only those in power would ever be deemed correct.
Further, this criterion lends itself to selective application, which I find rooted in the cult of the personality. To appeal to well-known scholars who disagree (while ignoring those who don’t) is one of the most basic logical fallacies: the argument from authority.
True scholarship will die in such an environment
 
Why is it troubling to raise troubling questions then try to answer them?

That is not what I said. Read again carefully: "It is also troubling to see an attempt to only raise troubling questions and not answer them." That was Carson's critique of what Enns did in his book, raise questions without answering them.
 
As for original sin, I think he's right; that sin (or the consequences of Adam and Eve's actions being passed down to all of humanity) is not in the Genesis text or the Bible except for Paul. It's only natural to ask where has Paul got it from because he didn't get it from the scripture he had at the time. People say "oh he got it from the spirit" but I've seen countless times where others have said that then got shouted down because they couldn't support it with scripture!!

Um, hello? Paul got his revelation directly from God while he was in Arabia for three years and was taught by no man, and he explains that in Galatians. If you discredit Paul in this area you must discredit all of his writings entirely as being false. Most of Paul's insights came from revelation so if you reject that then you reject Paul. Jesus also had novel interpretations not explicitly found in OT Scripture (Sermon on the mount, teaching on the Sabbath, fasting, etc.) That is no reason to discredit it. This is far too much of an oversimplification of Paul's stance anyway. We would need to dig into it in detail to do it justice instead of give it a dismissive wave of the hand.

This is not to mention that Paul kept himself in check with the rest of the Church in Jerusalem and the other Apostles on purpose lest he be doctrinally led astray. Paul clearly says in Galatians 2:2, "And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain." This was probably the occasion of the Acts 15 gathering at Jerusalem. Paul was fearful of running in vain with the things he had obtained by revelation and so he kept himself in check with those of reputation (the apostles) in the Church at Jerusalem.

Everyone has their critics, D.A Carson has his I'm sure. I don't like Peter Enns because of his scholarship I like him because he is prepared to go after the difficult questions then try to answer them, he doesn't accept "because it's in the Bible" as the only answer and doesn't automatically reject different views simply because they are different. He's challenging traditional views and asking the very legitimate question; are they right? After all, isn't that what you're doing with him?

There are conservative Christian scholars who ask the tough questions too, as well as atheists. I'm sure in the early Church the Gnostics and false prophets also had no problems raising difficult questions and troubling the saint's faith, as Paul and John address in their epistles. The question is whether you trust someone who is doctrinally awry to give you doctrinally sound information. I for one would not trust that source. Even Jesus rebuked demons for declaring that he was the Son of God (a true and doctrinally correct statement). I didn't say everything Enns writes is worthless, I was merely encouraging you to sift it against the Word of God - and he blatantly opposes Scripture in that he disagrees with the theology of Romans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can disagree with Paul on one section whilst agreeing with him on others. Yeah, he may have got it as a direct revelation but you missed the part where I put that when others have claimed similar things they get shot down for not referencing scripture and Enns is right, its not in the bible.

I see Enns more questioning traditional and fundamentalist interpretations which I'm also doing. It's about the dialogue.
 
Grazer said:
Yeah, he[Paul] may have got it as a direct revelation but you missed the part where I put that when others have claimed similar things they get shot down for not referencing scripture and Enns is right, its not in the bible.
I'd like to see cyberjosh's own response to this - but I need some clarification here. Why is Paul being compared with the 'others', when it is his writings and not theirs that are a part of Scripture. Or is there a more basic debate on what exactly is supposed to be deemed Scripture?

Besides, I primarily derived the teaching on original sin from John 3:6 and John 6:63 and not Paul's writings. Is John too suspect now? But these are red letter texts - so where do we end this then?
 
I'd like to see cyberjosh's own response to this - but I need some clarification here. Why is Paul being compared with the 'others', when it is his writings and not theirs that are a part of Scripture. Or is there a more basic debate on what exactly is supposed to be deemed Scripture?

Besides, I primarily derived the teaching on original sin from John 3:6 and John 6:63 and not Paul's writings. Is John too suspect now? But these are red letter texts - so where do we end this then?

Well Paul's writings are part of scripture because his writings were around when they were putting the bible together. Same with the gospels. You think the holy spirit stopped inspiring after that?
 
Grazer said:
Well Paul's writings are part of scripture because his writings were around when they were putting the bible together.
True. But I don't see the Bible as a collection of human writings put together by human minds - I see it as God inspiring human minds to communicate His message inerrantly, and then preserving that collection and copies and translations and variations to maintain that message infallibly, through human minds - wherein Paul's writings 'being around there then' was no coincidence but a preserving act of God. Of course, I do not expect everyone to agree. I hold this view because I believe God is capable of this - and because I believe this is necessary to uphold truth unambiguously - and because I have seen this last the test of time with no contradictions thus far.

Grazer said:
You think the holy spirit stopped inspiring after that?
Yes, there was no need to add to the finished work of God in revealing all that needed to be revealed about Him and His nature to man as absolute doctrinal truth. I do believe God still inspires us through His spiritual gifts - not the same as adding to doctrine, as it is an exposition or teaching of already present doctrine.
 
I can disagree with Paul on one section whilst agreeing with him on others.

Then very clearly you are your own authority for determining Scriptural truth.

Grazer said:
Yeah, he may have got it as a direct revelation but you missed the part where I put that when others have claimed similar things they get shot down for not referencing scripture and Enns is right, its not in the bible.

Then how do you know that Jesus was even resurrected or that any other claim of the early leaders of the Church is correct (and undoubtedly Paul was a major leader of the early Christian Church)? What is your own barometer for truth? You are citing 'revelation claims' in such a way as to call everyone of them into suspicion. Don't you realize that the early Church also had to work out the revelation claims for themselves in their own century? Meaning they have done your job for you and vetted Paul. Paul passed the test and was not opposed by the other leaders of the Church (he submitted to them and they came into agreement with his ministry at the Jerusalem council), even though James can be seen to take a different perspective on faith & works than Paul (they are reconcilable however).

Show me one early Christian work that opposes the idea of original sin to justify your skepticism. And good luck finding it in the unorthodox Gnostic writings because they don't even believe in sin.

Also you clearly seem to be excluding the New Testament from your definition of "Bible" (e.g. "not in the bible"). Are you Jewish or do you not see the NT as Scripture?

Grazer said:
I see Enns more questioning traditional and fundamentalist interpretations which I'm also doing. It's about the dialogue.

And there is plenty of dialogue to go around in both directions, I assure you. I have dedicated my life outside of my professional work to biblical scholarship and I assure you that there are very intellectually satisfying books that come from more orthodox circles as well, and that are not afraid of asking hard questions. Would you like some recommendations for reading?

God Bless,
~Josh
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That is not what I said. Read again carefully: "It is also troubling to see an attempt to only raise troubling questions and not answer them." That was Carson's critique of what Enns did in his book, raise questions without answering them.

Thanks for the link. I too am a fan of Carson. I followed the Emergent Church Movement for several years.

Asking questions is considered "wise" and "humble" in this movement. Having solid biblical answers is considered to be arrogant.

The first EC book I reviewed was McLaren's, "A Generous Orthodoxy" followed by Bell's "Velvet Elvis". Very clear patterns emerge. I see it over and over again.
 
Thanks for the link. I too am a fan of Carson. I followed the Emergent Church Movement for several years.

Asking questions is considered "wise" and "humble" in this movement. Having solid biblical answers is considered to be arrogant.

The first EC book I reviewed was McLaren's, "A Generous Orthodoxy" followed by Bell's "Velvet Elvis". Very clear patterns emerge. I see it over and over again.

Quite interesting. I hope by what you say that you are no longer "following" that movement (I assume you meant you were part of it and believed it). Bell also used to be a favorite teacher of some friends of mine until he went off the theological deep end and wrote Love Wins, after which they quickly disassociated themselves with him. One must always beware of the warning signs of doctrinal malfeasance.
 
I don't believe Jesus was resurrected simply because the bible says so. Yes the bible plays a part but so does the other supporting evidence. The gospels can be viewed as a collection of eye witness accounts, people who spoke to eye witnesses and other sources, Luke pretty much tells us that's what his gospel is based on in the opening few verses. So a case can be made without even having to assume the bible is inspired.

In the context of original sin, I'm asking where Paul got it from, at the time he only had the OT, there's no need to reference NT as scripture in the context of that discussion. I don't believe the holy spirit has stopped working and I don't believe its merely a case of being sinful that leads people taking different interpretations. If Paul got it from the holy spirit then great, but at least acknowledge that he didn't get it from scripture and with that in mind, why do you insist everything is supported with scripture?

We live in a very different culture to when the bible was written. The bible is very much a part of the culture within which it was written. That doesn't mean we dismiss parts that we think are no longer relevant (though I think we all do that to an extent) but it does play a part when we come to apply passages to our lives. We have different understandings on how the universe works to back then.

Thanks for the recommendations, send them to me I'll check them out. May even put a couple on my website :)

I want to take Paul seriously but I can't ignore that his understanding of the universe was very different to what we understand now. I can't ignore that the culture back then is very different to now (treatment of women being one) I don't believe the holy spirit has stopped working and inspiring. Simply put, we approach the bible differently, were on different journeys with God but I don't see it as a problem, just another example of gods infinite glory :)
 
In the
context of original sin, I'm asking where Paul got it from, at the time he only
had the OT, there's no need to reference NT as scripture in the context of that
discussion.



I don't agree with you.



Galatians 1


I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.




1 Corinthians 11:23F

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,



2 Corinthians 12:1

I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord.



all scripture New International Version (©1984)



1 Thessalonians 4:15

According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.
 
P31

I have no idea what those scriptures are meant to show other than what I've put.
 
Quite interesting. I hope by what you say that you are no longer "following" that movement (I assume you meant you were part of it and believed it). Bell also used to be a favorite teacher of some friends of mine until he went off the theological deep end and wrote Love Wins, after which they quickly disassociated themselves with him. One must always beware of the warning signs of doctrinal malfeasance.


Sorry I did not make myself clear. No I never believed that bogus stuff. I followed it - as in studied the movement so that I could warn others about it. At the time I was teaching young adults/college and careers classes at Church. When the buzz around McLaren began I picked up a copy of his book Generous Orthodoxy and within a few minutes I could see this was false doctrine he was into. Then I studied the works of the people who surrounded him/this movement.

Jim Wallis of God Politics and Sojourner is deep into this. I also find deep connections with Wallis, the EC movement and the Democratic Party. Deep Roots.

Satan is a master at world organizing.
 
It's only natural to ask where has Paul got it from because he didn't get it from the scripture he had at the time. People say "oh he got it from the spirit" but I've seen countless times where others have said that then got shouted down because they couldn't support it with scripture!!
but that was not the case for Paul since Peter wrote :"and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Here is a scripture supporting Paul's apostleship and authority. Peter clearly states that Paul's writings are truthful and authoritative and categorized as "Scriptures" (the rest of the scriptures)
 
but that was not the case for Paul since Peter wrote :"and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Here is a scripture supporting Paul's apostleship and authority. Peter clearly states that Paul's writings are truthful and authoritative and categorized as "Scriptures" (the rest of the scriptures)

But Pauls writings may be considered scripture now but he didn't have scripture support then. Essentially Paul brought it in with his writings. If I brought something in, I'd be asked for scripture support so I ask where's Pauls?
 
But Pauls writings may be considered scripture now but he didn't have scripture support then. Essentially Paul brought it in with his writings. If I brought something in, I'd be asked for scripture support so I ask where's Pauls?

No, Paul's writings were considered scripture then since Peter was a contemporary of Paul.
 
I don't believe Jesus was resurrected simply because the bible says so. Yes the bible plays a part but so does the other supporting evidence. The gospels can be viewed as a collection of eye witness accounts, people who spoke to eye witnesses and other sources, Luke pretty much tells us that's what his gospel is based on in the opening few verses. So a case can be made without even having to assume the bible is inspired.

In the context of original sin, I'm asking where Paul got it from, at the time he only had the OT, there's no need to reference NT as scripture in the context of that discussion. I don't believe the holy spirit has stopped working and I don't believe its merely a case of being sinful that leads people taking different interpretations. If Paul got it from the holy spirit then great, but at least acknowledge that he didn't get it from scripture and with that in mind, why do you insist everything is supported with scripture?

We live in a very different culture to when the bible was written. The bible is very much a part of the culture within which it was written. That doesn't mean we dismiss parts that we think are no longer relevant (though I think we all do that to an extent) but it does play a part when we come to apply passages to our lives. We have different understandings on how the universe works to back then.

Thanks for the recommendations, send them to me I'll check them out. May even put a couple on my website :)

I want to take Paul seriously but I can't ignore that his understanding of the universe was very different to what we understand now. I can't ignore that the culture back then is very different to now (treatment of women being one) I don't believe the holy spirit has stopped working and inspiring. Simply put, we approach the bible differently, were on different journeys with God but I don't see it as a problem, just another example of gods infinite glory :)

Support this doctrine of yours that the words of scripture were not God Breathed. (inspired)
 
No, Paul's writings were considered scripture then since Peter was a contemporary of Paul.

So Paul used his own writings to say "I got this from the spirit and here's my scriptural support"?
 
Back
Top