Rotary club schedules and contacts. Includes photos and profile of the Alaska Interior.

Rotary club schedules and contacts. Includes photos and profile of the Alaska Interior.

Mr.Johnson:

1. You write: "Yet many are blinded by the false definition of
'perfect' that allows Job to be considered perfect by 'declaratory
righteousness', i.e., he was perfect only because God said so, NOT
because he obeyed all righteousness."

I concur. Job's righteousness is real not forensic or imputed. I
suspect others are confusing common grace and special grace. All
human beings have sufficient common grace to know and do what is
right. We can infer that from the self-evident truth "ought implies
can". Job has consistently done that which is right.

Job's "persistence in his integrity" (Job 2:3; cf. Job 27:5) is
inconsistent with that righteousness being merely forensic or imputed.
If it were merely forensic or imputed, then persistence would be
irrelevant since that state of forensic or imputed righteousness would
be incapable of being lost.

Job's "blamelessness" (Job 1:1,8; 2:3) is from the Hebrew "tam" which
means "whole", "complete", "sound", "lacking in nothing". The same
word is even used to describe Satan's sinlessness prior to his fall.
(Ezekiel 28:3)

2. You write: "Your reference to such a large section, Job 27:1-31:33,
leaves it unclear why you think that Job made this specific complaint:
others have read it as something rather different, that Job was
demanding specifically why God had allowed _Job_ himself to be so
smitten."

Job asserts God is the author of some evil: the evil that befell him
(Job 2:10; 16:12-14) and the evil that befalls others. (Job 9:22-24;
10:3-4) It is not limited to Job's personal situation. He wants to
know why there is evil in the world (Job 10:2) and believes there is
an answer.(Job 10:13) These threads run through all Job's speeches
preceding his Oath of Innocence. Hence, I read the right he refers to
in the Oath of Innocence (Job 27:2) as the general human right to
know.

3. You write: "But did anyone claim [that God might be understood to
be excusing Job for speaking sincerely but incorrectly] this in this
thread? Why do you mention it here?"

No one made that claim. I mentioned it to foreclose that as a
possible future claim.

4. You write: "Which word [nebalah or folly]is in 42:8. And it is
interesting to note that the LXX translates it even more forcefully,
"if not for him [Job], I would destroy you [pl.]".

Excellent point.

5. You write: "That, as you say, is "one simple way", but why would we
believe it is the right way here?"

I don't believe it is the right way to understand the claim. I
mentioned it as an introduction to make the point that questioning
God, even within covenant, only requires diligence not sinlessness.

Personally, I think the best framework is God's general revelation in