The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Evidence of Post-Mortem Repentance/Salvation

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#81

I am not so sure of this. Job is a very deep book and I don’t believe Job was ever ‘perfect’ but merely ‘upright’. He was still imperfect in regards to his to the inner man and declared himself vile towards the end. He was not wicked, not even in the slightest, but not blameless as most understand it to mean. What I mean is that his trials were not the result of his sin. So he was blameless in that regard. If Job was perfect or even sinless we could find no comfort in the book of Job as every time we failed to hit the mark, we would be reminded that God would not consider us blameless, because we didn’t even measure up to Job!

When I read the Old Testament without the lens of our westernized concept of Christianity, I am see something that Christian’s told me was a fallacy and that is “there are no good people” and I suppose one could take that straight from Jesus “There is none good but God” but, then we would have to say Job was not good and thus, wasn’t blameless. I’d rather say that Jesus meant something else with that statement. Rather, I believe the OT teaches that there are good and bad people base on their life overall. A wicked person and a righteous person are defined not arbitrarily as we would define them, but as God defines them. If Job is blameless in the general sense of God not dealing harshly with us in regards to the small sins of the mind, we have reason to believe that good men exist and we can be those good men (and women).

The fallacy I am coming to reject is this.

100 truths, 1 white lie = evil
1 truth, 100 treacherous lies = evil

Whats the point in trying if you are declared vile by God no matter what? Perhaps, the top line isn’t evil at all, but a good man. That is what I believe. “Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.” - It seems to me that some Christian’s are creating a God that provokes his children and the result is discouraged children. Amazing how much of the wisdom in the Bible isn’t applied to God, but only us imperfect humans. Like, we are missing the big picture of who God really is.

#82

I didn’t say Job was sinless, I said he was blameless (some translations: perfect), as said back in Job 1:1 and 2:10.

When Jesus said “Be ye therefore perfect and even as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48), He wasn’t saying that they had to be sinless, although we should avoid sin as we can (He knows we are clay in this life), but that their overall behavior should reflect their status as “children of the Father”. That involves loving your enemies as you do your friends. That takes a conscious effort on our part to go the "extra mile’ that we would probably naturally not be inclined to do. You rise above your circumstances. That’s the perfection He is talking about.

Job went above and beyond by offering sacrifices ion behalf of his sons.

#83

I perceive Job is subverting the traditional orthodox explanation of suffering as simply a system of rewards and punishment (a view with which Elihu sympathizes). For it still validates Job as righteous, with God even allowing his exercise of moral judgment when it’s directed at challenging God Himself!

Thus, despite 42:7’s focus on rebuffing the three friends (who appear most egregious), I doubt it exonerates Elihu. He is “angry” at Job’s claim that his suffering is unjustified and that Job is righteous (32:2). For he brings the cocksureness of youth that he has “perfect knowledge” (36:4), which belongs alone to God (37:16; 1Sam 2:3). Thus he falsely accuses Job of claiming to be sinless (33:9), and displays deep ignorance of Job’s righteousness relationship with God (as verified to us in chs. 1-2 and the conclusion). Therefore, God’s closing rebuke strongly fits Elihu as well.

#84

I do not agree. If he was rebuked, surely God would have mentioned it specifically. You are reading into the text something that isn’t there.

As much as I don’t like pipers theology in general, it lines up with my opinions on Job.

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=IcSUVZ2vOJfYoASRnK7wCA&url=http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/job-rebuked-in-suffering&ved=0CBwQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEu6qJbbzib74ZoJGXcuu3q18BLgg&sig2=u2DCyNYjq_iNyUbF4zcm1

Also, read Job 36:4 again and in a few different translations and see if you still think Elihu is claiming that of himself… He is saying that God is the one with perfect knowledge not himself!

#85

Do we immediately get a resurrected body? Not sure! There’s the experiences of Tiffany Snow, who had a near death experience. She became a contemporary Christian healer and stigmatist (i.e. in the Old Catholic Church tradition). Here is her perspective on what happens three weeks after death at After Death, according to her visions. In addition, I have read contemporary and ancient cases of saints of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and other faith traditions, appearing in apparent physical form before people, after the saints have died - if only for a brief time.

#86

Elihu’s chapters are so weird I tend to ignore them anyway. He shows up out of plot-nowhere, and is promptly ignored by everyone including God. :wink: In effect he summarizes everyone’s arguments by taking everyone’s side including everyone’s side against each other.

I’ve read arguments pro and con, including some based on differences in the language (Lewis used to say that the difference in Hebrew is as if some chapters in Chaucer were written in Shakespearean English, though I’ve also read some rebuttals of that supposed difference), that Elihu’s chapters were added much, much later.

At any rate, I decided not to include (in my scriptural notes collection) Elihu’s statements on saving souls from sheol, since he seems contextually to be talking about God saving penitent sinners from being killed by their chastisement, and restoring them to health. Elihu is pretty blatantly sure later (36:18-21) that once a sinner dies they’re hopelessly punished and that there is no possible ransom for them. So since he regards Job (by now if not earlier) as a thoroughly evil man deserving the harshest punishment, he warns that Job had better not pray for death because if God grants it Job will be permadamned. (Though Elihu also pretty blatantly has no idea of the hope Job has in his Redeemer, since Elihu is thinking in terms of ransoms a king or other wealthy man might make to get someone out of prison, which he rightly says are of no value to God; on the other hand, as noted in chapter 33, even Elihu acknowledges that the ransom-payment God is looking for in chastising sinners is repentance from sin.)

In passing, it’s kind of amusing how often I’ll see non-universalists cite Job’s three friends, of all people, as solid Biblical testimony against post-mortem salvation specifically and universal salvation more generally. At least when Elihu backs them up on this he goes unrebuked, but then everyone ignores him including God. On the other hand, Job has some pretty permadamned things to say about his three friends eventually (e.g. Job 28:8-10), although I think it’s worth noting that Job calls this down on them because they refuse to have mercy on him. (Much like David against his little satan-accusers, though David’s situation is more obviously self-refuting since he hopes and expects God to have mercy on him eventually for his sins while hoping and expecting God to have no mercy on those other people for being themselves unmerciful to sinners like David!)

#87

Jason, we seem to agree that Elihu shares the three friends’ folly of seeing Job as “a thoroughly evil man deserving the harshest punishment” and “blatantly has no idea of Job’s hope in his Redeemer.”

So Gabe, since I at least read it this way, I don’t see how your argument from silence (God doesn’t “specifically” rebuke Elihu’s views) can bear the great weight required of overturning what already seems clearly developed as the main lesson of the whole overarching narrative. (and while 36:4 is ambiguous and unessential to my case for the purpose of the book, I’m not seeing how any translation convincingly overturns the logical impression that Elihu argues (fallaciously) that the reason Job can know his words are not false is that Job is in the presence of a man who possesses superior knowledge)

#88

Without wasting my time, did you read what Piper wrote about it? If so, then I guess the conversation has run it’s course. If not, read and refute that, as I would not want to re-invent the wheel.

When 3 out of 4 are “scolded”, I hardly consider that an argument of silence. Let’s not pretend that the burden of proof is required for my position. Rather, the burden of proof is needed for your position because you are reading into the text.

As I re-read, I think I am coming off as too abrasive and not my intent. Let me clarify something here…

If A,B,C, & D are ignorant and someone knows this to be true, person R (the rebuker) would naturally say “All 4 of you are wrong” rather than “You 3 are wrong”. The only way I think one can get around this is to suggest that Elihu was inserted into the text at a later time… BUT, if that is the case, it doesn’t bode well for anyone that holds to the idea that the scriptures do not contain errors… Clearly, if the text was added after, it is a man made book worst and at best a tinkering of God’s word. Now, from my background, I don’t necessarily ascribe to innerancy. Therefore, this issue has little impact on me, but it does for anyone who does hold to it.

When both of my kids are acting bad, I don’t just rebuke one of them. I rebuke both. To rebuke only 1 would give a 3rd party the idea that I approved the behavior of the child I did not rebuke. Hence, the burden of proof is on your position to explain why someone would rebuke 3 instead of 4 when rebuking 4 wouldn’t take anymore time or effort on the part of the writer. The mere omission is evidence that nothing Elihu said was wrong. Again, assuming you believe the book was not tampered with and God inspired.

And my mention of 36:4 wasn’t made for any other reason than to poke an easy hole into your assumption that Elihu was arrogant. It was nothing more than that. A lot of assumptions are made in scripture and that was a good example of one.

Take for example Jesus. If we didn’t believe He was the messiah, we could seem to find things he said that were harsh and arrogant… I mean, here this guy claims to be God! he claims to sit at the right hand of God! Now, if you do believe he is the messiah, all those scriptures now don’t seem quite like we thought. So, I am merely saying that you are judging Elihu because you are taking up offense for Job, assuming that Job is above rebuke. Once you let go of the idea that Job was perfect in every way and still had some issues to work on, you can accept that Elihu’s charge was not arrogant at all and was truthful. It is a matter of perspective. :bulb:

#89

I find this inconsistent… Was I wrong in thinking you believe in innerancy? It seems a bit strange to ignore scripture. Isn’t that an argument that is deployed against us who don’t believe in Biblical innerancy? That we can pick and chose? How is that any different than your “ignore this section of scripture”?

#90

Actually, to add what Gabe says, there is a comprehensive theological alternative to inerrancy called infallibility, which is adopted by different Anglican and Roman Catholic theologians, as well as some mainline Protestant denominations. It’s not “pick and choose”.

One need only peruse through the Wiki article Internal consistency of the Bible, for various approaches to this topic.
It’s interesting to look at the topic heading modern:

Also see Don Stewart :: What the Difference between the Inerrancy of Scripture and the Infallibility of Scripture?

For my rendering, as an Anglo-Catholic with a love for elements (i.e. Eastern Orthodox position on sin, Theosis and the Eucharist, as well as the Roman Catholic position on other religions and inclusivism) of Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology (although grounded in a conservative Anglican framework), I’ll run with the infallibility approach.

#91

Gabe,

Thanks for the reply. I don’t see Job as “perfect in every way,” nor in need of no rebuke! God himself actually gives some rebuke to him. Indeed, I sat with John Piper in 28 Bible & theology classes, and like much of what he says here about suffering, and perhaps Job really is more about perverse reactions to our suffering than I or most commentators have been able to recognize. But as even Piper observes, his points have not convinced most commentators to discard their understanding of Job’s theme, and thus not their conclusion that Elihu is little better than Eliphaz. Further, you agree that your (& my) view of inerrancy means insisting that Elihu’s views must be specifically rebuked “has little impact!”

That leaves my response to your claim that “Elihu did not give bad counsel:” that I doubted Job endorses (or exonerates) all that Elihu says. My basis was pointing to the contrary overarching theme, and citing with most commentaries (& even our JP) that Elihu is presented as embracing some of the same errors as the three friends, falsely accuses Job of claiming to be sinless, and displays ignorance of Job’s righteous position before God.

So what seems pivotal is that your only counter was to assert that I’m “reading into the text.” Folk often differ on who bears the most burden, but when I cite the reading of most commentators, what seems needed to defeat it, is to engage the citations, show how their interpretation is incorrect, and explain how Elihu is consistent with what’s highlighted to the reader, that Job is essentially ‘righteous,’ and not worthy of the “anger” that all four vent upon him.

All the best to you,
Bob

#92

Thanks Bob. I understand where you are coming from now in regards to the majority of commentators believing Elihu is essentially the same as the other three. To be honest, I really have no desire to read all the commentaries and then try and refute them, nor would I expect you to do the same if the position were reversed for such a trivial matter. I call this trivial, because this isn’t likely to change one’s life in any meaningful way as to whether you regard Elihu as giving wise counsel or not. Plenty of other scriptures that are probably more important. That said, my position is rather unwavering from the commentaries that I have read, which have probably only been about 6-10.

It sounds like you come from a systematic theology background (you were a pastor, right?) and not that it is bad (not at all) but that means you are going to interpret things different than I will. There is a method to my madness, but it isn’t formulated. I have to rely on my ability to gather data and analyze it the best I can, knowing I am ignorant in many of the things you have been trained in. But there is an advantage of not be trained up by the system.

All the best to you as well,
Gabe

#93

Gabe,

I appreciate your insight and always gracious response. I am admittedly enamored with the classic reading that Job strikes a blow against simply blaming those who suffer, and condemning them for expressing their questions and pain, when mystery remains in specific instances of suffering. But I heartily agree we don’t have a terribly consequential difference, and share your disinterest in wading through commentator’s details!

Yes, I was a pastor, and did take all the systematic theology stuff that John Piper did. Yet I’d say Fuller’s greater concentration was on Bible and exegesis (which seems similar to your focus on gathering and analyzing data; though of course bright people often can add the evidence up to differing conclusions). I am curious if you meant that you have read six or more commentaries that supported John’s idea that Job’s central messages are centered in Elihu’s words, or that Elihu’s presentation does not significantly overlap that of the rebuked friends?

Grace be with you,
Bob

#94

No, I did not read 6 or more commentaries that supported Piper’s position. Most of them were quite different altogether from one another. It seems this Elihu character is divisive! :slight_smile: - Also, I realize how confusing I was when I said I was unwavering and linked it with the commentaries I read. I think the reason I am unwavering in my viewpoint is because I have seen people all over the place with it (Elihu), that I decided I would make up my own mind. Then, it just so happened Piper (as noted before, I am not a fan, though I am sure he is a good man) came up to the same conclusion I did. it wasn’t that I read Piper and said “Ok, this is my position” it was more like “What do others think of Elihu” and found one that was pretty close my view point which, to my surprise was John Piper. Strange how that works… :slight_smile:

#95

Moving Job in another direction (probably off topic a bit) but I am curious what you all think about him have his fortunes restored, specifically sons and daughters. I was talking to a friend of mine a few weeks ago and I merely said “You cannot replace your children. You just can’t. God could give you more, but that would not take away the pain of the ones he took from you” So, in Job’s case, I am not sure ‘business usual’ was really the case. He must have been scarred from this experience, which also has some implications.

If memory induces pain, will we not be scarred eternally? Without a memory wipe, said memory is likely to trigger within us a deep emotional response, which is painful. Now, granted, I can only talk about THIS life, but I would assume the next life keeps our memory in tact, right? As MacDonald said, God would be blameless if he annihilated sinners, but it would still be defeat and sadness that his little ones have perished. I did not quote word for word, but that is from his sermon Justice. Then again, since God needs nothing, I struggle with the concept of Him being sad.

#96

My impression is that Job was not an actual figure, but a story formed to challenge a traditional assumption. Ironically, restoration of his fortunes sounds like the very concept of reward and punishment that the story is often thought to be confronting. But most seem to find that the point has already been firmly established that Job mysteriously suffers despite being an unusually righteous character.

I get that memories of past losses usually trigger pain. But in MacDonald’s view, since everything is restored and we can’t actually ‘lose’ our children, perhaps such triumph that such losses ultimately leads to will make their former grievousness pale in comparison.

#97

My impression in reading the book of Job, is that young Elihu was the man with understanding, and he respectfully waited for the older men to finish their words in which it was clear that they didn’t understand Job at all. They were sure that Job was suffering as a result of his sin. They didn’t understand God’s ways either. But Elihu’s words to Job were, in many respects, almost identical to the words which Yahweh spoke to Job (near the end of the book).

Yahweh told the three “friends” to offer sacrifices because they had not spoken what was right about Yahweh. But Yahweh didn’t require Elihu to sacrifice. Elihu’s words were wise — and true.

1 Like
#98

Does this imply that Tyre & Sidon (and at least some of Sodom) would repent of their sins on judgement day (and/or postmortem):

Mt.11:21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had happened in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to heaven? No, you will descend to Hades! For if the miracles that were performed in you had happened in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.