Archive for October 18th, 2010

A few days ago I posted an entry on Peter Enns’s theological method behind the formulation of his bibliology. What follows are some of the “leftovers”.  It is an example of the logical fallacies Enns commit in his book).

–         The gist of Enn’s discussion of Job as an example of “theological diversity” within the Old Testament was that, “Job’s friends express what seems utterly true; one would not blink if one were reading Deuteronomy and came across such statements.  In a way, they are well within their biblical right to draw the conclusion they do.” (Page 82)

o       Enn’s argument: “If disobedience leads to God’s curse (Deut. 28:15-68), then it is not too hard to reason back the other way: if you are cursed, you must have done something to deserve it.  This is the assumption that fuels the dialogue between Job and his friends in Job 3-37.” (Page 81)

§         Problem: Fallacy of affirming the consequent (If a, then b; b; therefore, a)

§         Conclusion: Enns is incorrect in saying that Job’s friends are “within their biblical right to draw the conclusion they do”, because it’s a misapplication of Scripture.

Read Full Post »