Grazer
Member
- Jun 22, 2012
- 1,955
- 1
- Thread starter
- #21
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
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