DA (Don) Carson

[evangelist6589]

He is no question a very bright man, however I am not so sure I agree with his philosophical way of writing, and his (what it appears to be) a more Arminean/evidential way of doing Apologetics. Or am I incorrect on this one? Yes I am aware of his academic credentials and yes he wrote a very good book on NT Introduction. It was not as good as Archer's OT Introduction, but a decent book.

 

[Greektim]

He is no question a very bright man, however I am not so sure I agree with his philosophical way of writing, and his (what it appears to be) a more Arminean/evidential way of doing Apologetics. Or am I incorrect on this one? Yes I am aware of his academic credentials and yes he wrote a very good book on NT Introduction. It was not as good as Archer's OT Introduction, but a decent book.

How do you compare a NT intro w/ an OT intro? That seems silly. And I don't think Archer's is the end all be all of OT intros anyways. Hill and Walton is top notch, IMO.

As for his apologetics, what are you citing or thinking of when you make this statement? I would not put him in the apologetics camp at all, so I'm just curious where you are coming from.

 

[TadQueasy]

GreekTim is right, he does not do apologetics. It seems you are pretty confused. Carson is one of the best and brightest in what he does with the NT.

 

[Greektim]

GreekTim is right, he does not do apologetics. It seems you are pretty confused. Carson is one of the best and brightest in what he does with the NT.

Pretty positive he's not arminian either.

 

[evangelist6589]

How do you compare a NT intro w/ an OT intro? That seems silly. And I don't think Archer's is the end all be all of OT intros anyways. Hill and Walton is top notch, IMO.

As for his apologetics, what are you citing or thinking of when you make this statement? I would not put him in the apologetics camp at all, so I'm just curious where you are coming from.

Well he has written some books and is listed as a author in some apologetic books as a source. No he is more a Biblical Exegete, but people get confused and they do not all agree. H erecently wrote a book on Tolererance. Josh McDowell wrote a similiar book.

 

[evangelist6589]

GreekTim is right, he does not do apologetics. It seems you are pretty confused. Carson is one of the best and brightest in what he does with the NT.

Yes he does. He is listed as a author and a source in some apologetic books. He also wrote a book on Tolerance and PostModernism.

 

[evangelist6589]

GreekTim is right, he does not do apologetics. It seems you are pretty confused. Carson is one of the best and brightest in what he does with the NT.

http://www.realapologetics.org/blog/2010/07/14/da-carson-and-presuppositional-apologetics/

 

[TadQueasy]

Thanks. I see. Answering a question on video and being a footnote in a book is not necessarily doing apologetics. His book on Tolerance is not an apologetics book either. But either way Carson is great blessing to the church today and anything he writes or says should be taken seriously.

 

[evangelist6589]

Thanks. I see. Answering a question on video and being a footnote in a book is not necessarily doing apologetics. His book on Tolerance is not an apologetics book either. But either way Carson is great blessing to the church today and anything he writes or says should be taken seriously.

There are other sites that disagree with you besides the one mentioned. Do a google search and see for yourself! No his book "The Gagging of God" is not in a footnote, its a RECOMMENDED read on the subject of PostModernism by Norm Geisler in one of his Apologetics books. Oh and bye the way writing a book on tolerance is doing apologetics. There are multiple fields of Apologetics but it is "defending the faith." Josh McDowell did that in his book on Tolerance and I bet Carson does as well in his version.

 

[Havensdad]

Brother,

Carson is Reformed, and is Calvinist/Compatibilist in Doctrine. Not all Calvinists reject evidential approaches to apologetics (which makes sense, since they are compatibilists).

RC Sprouls apologetics are quite similar to Carson, but Sproul is by no means an Arminian!

And, for the record, I think Carson is just about the smartest person in evangelicalism today.

 

[Greektim]

There are other sites that disagree with you besides the one mentioned. Do a google search and see for yourself! No his book "The Gagging of God" is not in a footnote, its a RECOMMENDED read on the subject of PostModernism by Norm Geisler in one of his Apologetics books. Oh and bye the way writing a book on tolerance is doing apologetics. There are multiple fields of Apologetics but it is "defending the faith." Josh McDowell did that in his book on Tolerance and I bet Carson does as well in his version.

So writing 1 book on Postmodernity makes one an apologist??? Carson is a NT scholar first and foremost. That much is observed by the majority of his other books and articles. My professor wrote a a book on linguistics, but he would not call himself a linguist. He is a NT scholar (see his quote below). Semantics? Yes! Important for distinction? Yes.

 

[Van]

Too bad being smart does not equate with being right.

If I understood his argument, and I am certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, we should accept that God exists on faith, rather than ask the question, Does God exist, which is a form of rebellion.

Yes the fool says in his heart, there is no God. (Psalm 14:1).

But to ask, out of ignorance, does God exist, seems just as likely to be based on seeking God as on rebellion from God.

 

[JonC]

I don’t think DA Carson advocates experiential apologetics, but maybe presuppositional apologetics since he seems opposed to “proving” the existence of God. While he is not an “apologetic” in the sense that that defines his ministry, profession, or work – all Christians are called to provide an answer for the faith.

He does, I believe, point out a flaw with many who think that one can persuade someone else into belief. It is not on us to “prove” the existence of God (God has provided ample proof of Himself – I don’t think that we can do any better).

Personally, I think that apologetics serves better to confront the unbeliever on the faults within their own worldview rather than proving Christianity. It’s a defense of and an answer for our faith – not the foundation upon which our faith is built.

 

[TCGreek]

DA Carson is quite brilliant and serves the Church well. But I'm afraid that he is not for everyone, being both a Calvinist and a complementarian.

 

[evangelist6589]

Brother,

Carson is Reformed, and is Calvinist/Compatibilist in Doctrine. Not all Calvinists reject evidential approaches to apologetics (which makes sense, since they are compatibilists).

RC Sprouls apologetics are quite similar to Carson, but Sproul is by no means an Arminian!

And, for the record, I think Carson is just about the smartest person in evangelicalism today.

Him or Norm Geisler for that title. Geisler is also a walking book. I did not know that Calvinists can also be evidentialists. This would explain some of DA Carsons methods.

 

[evangelist6589]

So writing 1 book on Postmodernity makes one an apologist??? Carson is a NT scholar first and foremost. That much is observed by the majority of his other books and articles. My professor wrote a a book on linguistics, but he would not call himself a linguist. He is a NT scholar (see his quote below). Semantics? Yes! Important for distinction? Yes.

No he is not a vocational apologist. However he has written some books that fit into the category. I do not understand why so few can understand what I am saying.

 

[TadQueasy]

I do not understand why so few can understand what I am saying.

Dispensationalism