Colossians 2:13-14 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

The Subjective Justification Card
Here, the proponent of UOJ will plainly state that the first half of the passage is referring to the subjective aspect of UOJ, while the second half is referring to the objective aspect.

Mmmm, is it just me or is that a pretty convenient way of reading Scripture in…it’s…context…sort of?

Think about it. If you were not already viewing this passage through the lens of UOJ, would you ever come up with UOJ by pulling meaning from the text?

This passage serves as a classic example of 2 serious problems with poor UOJ interpretation, 1) imposing meaning upon the text, rather than pulling meaning from the text and 2) whipping out the subjective justification card when Scripture does not fit with UOJ.

Repeatedly, I have seen instances when the Scriptures (or the Lutheran Confessions) do not support or otherwise openly deny UOJ, where the proponent of UOJ will simply say, “Well, that’s just talking about the subjective aspect of UOJ.”

Rather than clearly seeing the truth for what it is, the proponent of UOJ insists upon covering his eyes and falling back on subjective justification. This is part of the reason, it is so incredibly difficult to help the proponent of UOJ to see this false doctrine for what it is. Often times, so many who reject UOJ, point to a number of biblical passages and/or confessional quotes and say, “See, it’s obvious. Scripture and/or the Confessions teach justification by faith.” To which the proponent of UOJ simply replies, “Well, of course! That’s just referring to the subjective aspect of UOJ.”  This is part of the reason why I have attempted to take a different approach on this site, but I digress.

It’s All About Pronouns
“Ahh, but look at the change in pronouns.” The proponent of UOJ might say.

Okay, let’s do that. Let’s look at the passage again.

~ Colossians 2:13-14 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Yes, there is a change in pronouns. Paul goes from speaking about you and your to speaking of us and our.

Decide for yourself which makes more sense.

Paul is speaking to the Colossians about the Colossians, then adds other believers into the discussion, whether it be 1) Paul simply adding himself to the discussion or 2) adding himself and anyone else with him as he writes this letter to the Colossians or 3) adding himself and all believers to the discussion. Any way you look at it, everyone Paul is referring to is a believer.

Or…

Should we understand Paul’s words to mean (as proponents of UOJ would have us believe) he is speaking to the Colossians about the Colossians, then switches gears entirely and starts speaking of the whole world, believers and unbelievers alike.

Now, on the surface you might conclude it could go either way. And, it could. So, let’s run with that. If this is the case (it could go either way), then UOJ is not proved here, at best, it is speculated instead. Remember the burden of proof falls on the proponent of UOJ.

A MUCH BIGGER Problem!
If we conclude that Paul switches to speaking of the whole world (including the unbeliever), it’s not enough to hear Paul speaking of UOJ, we have to take seriously all that Paul says about the unbeliever. Here is the passage once again.

~ Colossians 2:13-14 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Let this sink in.

If there is no longer a written code with any regulations; if there is nothing against or standing opposed; if all has been fully taken away from the unbeliever, then what is left to condemn him by the law?

Keep thinking. Keep letting this sink in.

If there is nothing left to condemn him by the law, then here are some logical conclusions we could come to regarding each and every unbeliever:

1. He cannot be condemned by the law, though in theory he could be condemned by his unbelief without the condemnation of the law per-se.

2. Though, if the unbeliever is condemned by his unbelief, rather than by the law, then this disproves the law/gospel distinction argument (Category 1 – Questions 4 & 5) put forth by proponents of UOJ. One cannot be (according to the argument) forgiven by the gospel, yet stand condemned by the law (when the law has been taken away). UOJ logic is then proved faulty.

3. Further, if the unbeliever is somehow not condemned by his unbelief, yet there is also no law against him (through universalism, for example), then this too disproves the law/gospel distinction argument. UOJ logic is still proved faulty.

4. Let’s go the other direction. If the proponent of UOJ insists on clinging to his law/gospel argument, then (to be consistent) he must let go of this passage as a UOJ proof passage.  UOJ logic is proved faulty and the proponent of UOJ is proved to have read UOJ into the text of Scripture rather than drawing it from Scripture.

5. Finally, if there is no law against the unbeliever and if he does not stand condemned by his unbelief (point 3 above) then universalism must be true.  UOJ logic is proved exceedingly faulty as well as contradictory since proponents of UOJ openly reject universalism. (Actually, there is one other theoretical possibility I could think of…the unbeliever could theoretically be condemned by his inherent sinful condition, but the believer is made new in spirit/born again – made morally perfect/righteous in Christ – as discussed in Category 1 – Question 7, when faith is granted. This fact ultimately just brings us back to the previously mentioned possibility of the unbeliever being condemned due to his unbelief – as one who has NOT been made new/born again. If this whole parenthetical thought only adds to your confusion :-o, forget everything I just said inside these parentheses).

No matter how you look at it, it seems the proponent of UOJ, just can’t win with this proof passage!

Almost Done, But Not Before It Gets Worse
While these possibilities may be a lot to absorb, these are logical conclusions to be drawn, if we read UOJ into the text and assume the second half of the passage refers to the whole word (including the unbeliever).

Ahh, but let’s think about that for a moment. If the proponent of UOJ thinks these things through and is honest about the conclusions, then he must concede that this is not a valid proof passage in support of UOJ.

Yet, if he concedes that he (and every other proponent of UOJ who uses this proof text – which is commonly used) has, indeed, read UOJ into the text, then he is admitting that he has been reading UOJ into the text of Scripture – seeing and proclaiming as truth, that which just isn’t there (is falsehood). He (and/or others in his camp), has also been disfellowshipping others based upon poor interpretation of Scripture.

In other words, this is a major lose – lose proposition for the proponent of UOJ.

Once again, in further context of Colossians, as well as in the included context of the passage, anyone who is honest with the text can plainly see that Paul is referring to believers, those whom God has “made alive” with Christ as Col 2:13 clearly states.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

I know I said I would keep these Proof Passage discussions as brief as possible (and this one was originally much shorter), but the end result of drawing logical conclusions, made a lengthy explanation necessary for this “proof.” I’ve tried to keep the others shorter than this one.

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Who Else?
Who else but Jesus, is the atoning sacrifice for the sake of all the sins of the whole world?

But, what does this have to do with UOJ? Again, the question must be raised, is UOJ being pulled from the text or inserted into it?

Lost in Translation?
The NIV84 renders this text with “atoning sacrifice.” Many translations use “propitiation” instead. Either way, there is a sense of the “turning away” of God’s wrath. In other words, I would argue that this verse is saying more than Jesus is the one who was sacrificed for the whole world. It is saying that Jesus is the one who turns away God’s wrath “for” the whole world. Am I admitting UOJ works well here? Not at all.

The question becomes, what is meant by turning away wrath “for” the whole world…what does “for” mean? Does it mean Jesus is the one who has already turned away the wrath of God toward all (each one) who are in the world? Or, does it mean Jesus is the one who turns away (in an ongoing manner) God’s wrath on behalf of all who are in the world, for each one as he is granted the gift of faith.

Let’s try taking off our UOJ glasses for a moment (if you have yours on, that is) and consider whether or not this verse proves UOJ or is closer to JIC. Consider which works best as I provide my own paraphrase for the verse (I’ll include the original as well for comparison).

~ Jesus is the one who turns away the wrath of God, by way of his sacrifice – wrath which is not only due to us (as believers) because of our sins, but also due to the whole world (including unbelievers) because of the whole world’s sins.

~ 1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Is it even remotely possible that my paraphrase serves as a valid way of looking at the passage. If so, just remember that the burden of proof falls on the proponent of UOJ to demonstrate conclusively that 1Jn 2:2 must be understood, in light of UOJ and no other way. Otherwise, this is not a conclusive proof passage. At best, it only leaves UOJ as a possibility…which leaves JIC as a possibility as well.

See for Yourself
I encourage you to look up the verse in context as you also take into consideration how much John speaks of those who are in Christ, how to tell if you are in Christ, and so on, in the surrounding verses (1Jn 2:1-6).

Personally, I lean heavily toward the verse saying that propitiation, not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world, has been made and is found in Christ as a result of his sacrifice. In other words, in Christ is found the satisfaction for the wrath of God against all (the whole world’s) sin.

~ 1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here, in context?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

Romans 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

For or Because?
Here, the proponent of UOJ would argue that the two uses of the the word “for” could be better translated “because” so as to render the verse, “He was delivered over to death because of our sins and was raised to life because of our justification.”

First, though it is true that the word “for” could be translated “because” it is also true that it can rightly be rendered “for” as well. While “because” may give the impression of better support for UOJ, in the end it does not.

Even if the verse is best translated “because” it still does nothing to prove UOJ, since in this verse, Paul is (in context, and context is always king) referring to believers only.

Lutheran or Calvinist?
Gasp! But, wait! Did I just say that Christ died (and was raised) for the sins of believers only? Absolutely not! But, in my experience, this is what the proponent of UOJ will normally declare of the one who makes this objection. “You must be a Calvinist who believes in limited atonement.” he might say. But is this sound reasoning?

If Christ died for the sins of the whole world and was raised to life for the sake of the whole world, then the whole world also includes believers, correct?

Imagine I take my family to the local stadium to watch our favorite sports team play. Our team pulls out a come-from-behind victory in the last few seconds of the game. In the car, on the way home, I say to my family, “Wow! Our team gave us a great game today, didn’t they?”

When I use the words “our” and “us” who am I referring to? I am referring exclusively to myself and my family. Does this mean I am indoctrinating my family with the false teaching of limited attendance? Does this mean I believe that the team only played a great game for my family and not for the other fans in attendance at the stadium; those watching on TV; or those listening on the radio? No. It simply means that I am talking to my family about my family.

By Works, By Faith or By Existence?
In context, in the book of Romans, leading up to verse 4:25, Paul’s whole point is to help the reader understand that no one can possibly earn God’s favor…no one can become righteous through works of the law. Instead, each and every one of us needs a foreign righteousness which comes by way of faith. Paul is specifically laying out the contrast in man’s attempts to be righteous on his own vs receiving Christ’s righteousness by faith.

In this context, it makes no sense whatsoever for Paul, in the middle of his explanation of righteousness by faith and not by works of the law, to pause and say, “Oh and by the way, justification really comes to all who have ever existed or will ever exist regardless of faith or works of the law. Now, let me get back to explaining this righteousness which comes only by faith and not by works.”

The whole of the context of Romans chapters 4 and 5, screams out to us that Paul is speaking exclusively to believers about believers, not the whole world in verse 4:25.

Even If…
But let’s, for the sake of argument, say that Paul is speaking of the whole world in 4:25. It still makes far more sense for Paul to be saying, “He was delivered over to death for the sins of the whole world and was raised to life for the justification of the whole world which has been applied to Christ’s account on our behalf and is found in him and received by faith.” than it does for Paul to be saying that the whole world has had justification applied to each and every personal account, yet righteousness comes by faith and not works. (By the way, don’t forget that the proponent of UOJ says justification and righteousness are synonymous.)

Read Romans for yourself in context and allow the text to speak to you rather than imposing meaning upon the text. If you are honest with the text, I think you will rightly conclude, Paul is speaking to believers about believers in 4:25.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

1 Tim 4:10 We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

Who Else?
Who else would be the Savior of all, other than Christ?

This verse does nothing to prove objective justification. Why? Because, the verse does not speak of the justification or even forgiveness or righteousness of all, but at best (in keeping with UOJ reasoning) of the salvation of all.

Salvation For All
Moreover, some proponents have stated as much, yet somehow still deny universalism (the universal salvation of all). Consider the following (referring to 1Tim 4:10):

God is not merely the potential Savior of all people; he is the Savior of all people. If God is the Savior of all people, and Christ’s redemptive work is complete, then we can say that God saved all people in Christ. To say that God did not save all people in Christ would be to say that Jesus’ work was incomplete or not for all. (Jesus Canceled Your Debt! By Pastor Jon D. Buchholz) Emphasis is mine.

In Christ
In context, Mr. Buchholz goes on to reject universalism. By doing so, he seems to recognize some sense in which God has saved all and yet not saved all. Notice, what he does to resolve this dilemma. He says, “God saved all people in Christ.” In fact he mentions what God has done in Christ twice.

I wonder if Mr. Buchholz actually leans more toward JIC than traditional UOJ, without realizing it. By the way, I’ve seen this sort of thing quite a bit in my UOJ investigations. When the proponent of UOJ sometimes finds himself in a bit of a sticky situation theologically (trying to carry UOJ to its logical conclusion while also avoiding universalism, for example), he sometimes adds the words in Christ to his UOJisms (UOJisms, I just made that up, could you tell?).

Do I believe salvation is found in Christ? Absolutely! But how does anyone receive that which is in Christ? Scripture’s answer is to be in Christ yourself. Those who are NOT in Christ do not have that which is in Christ. Why? Because they are outside of Christ (simple, huh?). In other words, salvation is by faith alone.

UOJ or JIC? You decide.

Cake Anyone?
As for the proponent of UOJ, he regularly likes to have his cake and eat it too. He regularly likes to speak of the salvation of all, while also rejecting (for now) universalism (see Category 1 – Question 9). He likes to speak of the justification of all, while also rejecting eternal life for all, even when the “all” of Ro 5:18 refers to both justification and eternal life, for example (which we’ll look at next).

While this may be a very convenient way of interpreting Scripture, I would suggest it is not very honest with the text. Again, is UOJ being pulled from the text or imposed upon it? You’ll have to decide for yourself.

Transition
Otherwise, please take notice (in this “proof” passage) of the perfect example we have from Paul as he speaks very clearly when he is transitioning from speaking about unbelievers to speaking about believers only (“the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.”), just as John did previously (1Jn 2:2). Yet, proponents of UOJ would have us believe that Paul jumps back and forth between speaking about believers and speaking about the whole world (including unbelievers) in passages like Rom 4:25, while giving us no notice that he is doing so. While it is true that the biblical writers could have chosen to give no transition if they wanted to, maybe verses such as 1Jn 2:2 and 1Tim 4:10 can serves as a reminder that the writers might just have been in the habit of giving us a nice transition (a heads-up), instead.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

Or, 20th Century NT “Just as a single offense resulted for all mankind in condemnation, so, too, a single decree of righteousness resulted for all mankind in that declaration of righteousness which brings Life.”

Here, I have included what one proponent of UOJ has declared to be the best translation of Romans 5:18 which is from the 20^th Century NT translation.

Convenience is King?
Does anyone else find it completely convenient that the proponent of UOJ will regularly use this verse as a proof passage, while always consistently ignoring the end of the verse?

I guess I shouldn’t say he will ignore it, he will dismiss it instead.

In other words, the proponent of UOJ will teach that this passage effectively says, “Just as all have been condemned as a result of the one sin of Adam, so the one act of righteousness (or the one decree of righteousness) of Christ, has brought about the justification (declaration of righteousness) of all mankind. Oh, and forget about the ‘life’ portion of the verse because we all know God does not give eternal life to the unbeliever, only the justification/righteousness portion of the verse counts for all people. ‘All’ is not referring to those with life, only those with justification/righteousness.”

Lesson in Interpretation
Hmmm, mental note for Bible interpretation…life and justification/righteousness always get separated when referring to the objective aspect of UOJ, even when both are included in the same verse of Scripture as the object of “all” or “all mankind.” Got it!

This is what proponents of UOJ would have you believe. But, examine this verse more closely.

Closer Examination & Analysis
First, this verse does more to disprove UOJ than it does to prove it. Think about it. If UOJ were true, then it must apply to all people of all time. This includes all people before the time of Christ, going back to the beginning of time with Adam and Eve.

If UOJ were true, what this verse would actually be saying is this, “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men (who have been declared righteous whether they believe it or not), so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification for all (even those who are not only justified but also condemned) that brings life for all men (well, not really life, just justification for all…life comes only to those who believe).”

Do you see it? Universal Objective Condemnation (as I have come to call it) disproves UOJ. One cannot legitimately be declared condemned and declared justified and forgiven at the same time.

In Christ
What makes far more sense and is most consistent with Scripture (in my view) is to understand this verse to be saying something like this, “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness (or decree of righteousness applied to Christ’s account) was justification for all (hidden in Christ and applied to each personal account by faith) which also brings with it life for all men (life has been acquired for all and remains hidden in Christ and is applied to each personal account by faith…or, life has been applied to Christ’s account and is distributed to each account by faith).”

Or we might think of it this way. Just as Adam confers sin and death to all who are born from him, so Christ confers justification/righteousness and life to those who are born of him (which is available to all).

Did Christ’s justifying work bring about justification for all? Yes. But, where is this justification for all to be found? You will have to decide for yourself in light of the full testimony of Scripture. Has it been applied to each individual’s account? Or… has it been applied to Christ’s account, to be distributed to each individual only through faith?

Did Christ’s justifying work bring about life for all? Yes. But where is this life to be found? Has it been applied to all? If not, what is it about the verse which tells you life should be separated from the justification and/righteousness for all?

Natural Meaning
Consider that according to both translations, it is most natural to read and understand the verse as saying, the justification (or righteousness) which has been brought about through Christ, brings life right along with it. Look at each again and see if this isn’t true.

~ Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

~ Or, 20th Century NT “Just as a single offense resulted for all mankind in condemnation, so, too, a single decree of righteousness resulted for all mankind in that declaration of righteousness which brings Life.”

To read it and come to the conclusion that justification/righteousness should be separated from life is to read it through the lens of UOJ (or some other faulty lens) and to impose that meaning on the text. Nothing in the text, itself, suggests the two should be separated.

To separate the two is nothing more than a convenient way of supporting one’s own false doctrine.

Context is King!
By the way, since proponents of UOJ tell us that life should NOT be applied to all in the same way that justification/righteousness should be, the question becomes, “How do they know?”

“Ahh…” proponents may say, “The evidence lies in the context of the rest of Scripture, which does not allow us to conclude that all people have life.”

To which I would say, “Precisely!”

It is this same “full context of Scripture” which also does not allow us to conclude that all have been justified either. So, once again the UOJ proponent’s own argumentation works against him.

The proponent of UOJ is therefore left with the only conclusion he can come to, in an effort to cling to his false theology, “The broader context of Scripture should be taken at face value when referring to the fact that all do not have life, but it should not be taken at face value when it speaks of the fact that all have not been justified. In the case of justification, it is somehow a law gospel distinction, while in the case of eternal life it is somehow not a law/gospel distinction. In short, in the case of justification, UOJ is still true. Why? Because we say so.”

Do you see it? The real object of faith becomes the doctrine of UOJ, itself. That and a trust in the words of those who teach UOJ, over a trust in the words of Scripture. (See Q & A, Category 1)

So, what do you think…in light of the whole testimony of Scripture, does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

2 Corinthians 5:14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.

Death Is Not Justification
Yes, I agree…with Christ, all died. But death, in-and-of-itself, has nothing to do with being objectively justified. It does nothing to support UOJ.

Instead, there is a distinction being made between those who died with Christ and those who live in Christ (2Co 5:15). With Christ, all have died, yes. But only those who have life in Christ receive the forgiveness, justification and righteousness which is hidden in Christ.

Everyone else, still needs to be reconciled through the message of reconciliation for the whole world (which we’ll look at next).

And, since so many need to hear this message of reconciliation, we should probably get busy helping others to be justified, instead of spending all of our time and effort debating, this all important topic. Though, on the other hand, we should get this topic (justification) right as we go out to reconcile the world.

Well, that’s my conclusion, anyway. What do you think?

So, does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back to Top of List

Go Back to Category Tabs

2 Corinthians 5:19 God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.

Which Words Are Key?
Proponents of UOJ will tell you that the key words in this verse are “world” and “men’s” (which is sometimes translated as “their”). Proponents of UOJ will tell you that men’s is referring back to the word “world” and therefore UOJ is true since all of the world’s sins have not been counted against them.

But, does the verse say that sins have not been counted against the world (past tense). Or, does it say God was and is in the process of not counting sins against those of the world (past, present and future tense)?

You see, I would argue that the key words in the verse are “was” and “reconciling” rather than “world” and “men’s.” In the Greek, the word translated “was” carries with it a past, present and future sense. It was, is and will continue to happen. In other words, in Paul’s day, what Paul was saying is that God was (in the past), is (in the 1^st century) and will continue (until the end of time) to be reconciling the world to himself…oh, and here it comes…“in Christ” by way of not counting men’s sins against them.

Here again, the word “reconciling” (not “reconciled”) suggests something ongoing. And how will God continue to go about all of this reconciling? Context once again tells us. The way in which man is to be found having been made new in Christ, is through the message of reconciliation (2Co 5:19-21).

Be Reconciled (Present, Not Past)
This is all further evidenced by the fact that Paul goes on to implore the Corinthians to be reconciled to God. He does not say, “Isn’t it great that the whole world has been reconciled to God even apart from faith.” No, he says, “We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God (2Co 5:20).”

Reality
“In Christ” makes all the difference. In keeping with JIC, there is a sense in which we could say that the whole world has indeed been reconciled to God, BUT (and, that’s a great big BUT), that reconciliation remains in Christ.  A person has to, himself, be in Christ in order to receive that which is in Christ (namely, reconciliation – in addition to justification, forgiveness righteousness, etc.).  Those who remain outside of Christ, also remain outside of the reconciliation, justification, forgiveness and so on, which is found in Christ. 

You see, that whole “in Christ” thing, just keeps getting in the way of UOJ being valid for those outside of Christ.  And, just as those who are in Christ get all of the blessings and benefits of all that is in Christ, so too, those who are outside of Christ, get all of the “blessings” and “benefits” of that which is outside of Christ – such getting to sin all they want, as well as standing condemned, remaining under God’s wrath, and so on.

That just makes sense, in light of Scripture, doesn’t it?  Or, is it just me?  And, it makes far more sense than “some are forgiven and forgiven (objective/subjective for believers), while others are forgiven and unforgiven (objective/subjective for unbelievers).”  See: Mt 6:14-15; Mt 12:32 & Jn 20:23.

2Co 5:19 does not suggest that the whole world has been reconciled (past tense) to God, but rather that reconciliation of the world comes by way of Christ’s completed work of reconciliation and is found in Christ, received by anyone who is a part of the whole world by way of the reconciliation message which brings about a new creation (the righteousness of God – 2 Co 5:21) in Christ.

Or, at least that’s my view. You’ll have to decide for yourself, in light of Scripture.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

Romans 3:23-24 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Freely Justified
All are justified freely…amen.

All have sinned. And, how are all able to be justified? Freely by God’s grace. And, how has this grace been demonstrated/shown itself to the world? Through the redeeming work of Christ…through the redemption which is hidden in Christ and received by faith.

Notice the word “are” (often translated as “being”), “…and are justified freely.” It does not say “have been” as in “have been justified freely.” It is in the present and is ongoing, not objectively in the past.

Now, go back and read these verses in context (context is once again king) and see that everything surrounding these verses is speaking of righteousness and justification by faith. Decide for yourself if these verses speak of UOJ or if UOJ is being imposed upon the text.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Who is it who takes away the world’s sins? Only Christ. Amen.

Each Word Matters
Notice again the past, present and future sense of the word “takes.” John does not say, “Look the lamb of God who will take away the whole world’s sins.” Or, “Look the lamb of God who has taken away the whole world’s sins.” (which would make less sense, since Christ had not gone to the cross yet). No. John says, “takes away” as in ongoing.

It seems just about every time I read something from a proponent of UOJ referring to this verse, the word, “takes” is changed to “has taken.” John simply does not say, “has taken.” He says, “takes.”

Nor, does John give any indication that one day Christ’s work (which would have been in the future when John said this) should be understood in keeping with UOJ. In other words, he does not say, “will take.” No. John says, “takes”…and words matter.

Who became fully guilty of the world’s sins? Christ. Who takes away the world’s sins? Christ. Who was justified on behalf of the world? Christ. Where is the world’s justification and forgiveness for sins to be found? Is it found in each and every individual’s personal account? Or, is it found in Christ, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?

What do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back to Top of List

Go Back to Category Tabs

2 Peter 2:1 They [false teachers] will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them.

Fully Bought
Bought! Paid for! Paid in full!

Did Christ pay the full redemption price?

Absolutely!

What constitutes the fullness of a full redemption price?

Did Christ fully pay…but only for some? The Calvinist would have us think so.

Or, did he fully pay the full price for all? The good Lutheran must say, yes.

God is good. God is perfect. He does everything he does with completion, with perfection, with…fullness.

As a result, none can ever legitimately say, “The Lord did not pay the full price for the whole world…the full price for me.” Satan, the accuser, cannot legitimately say, “The full price has not been paid.”

Though many refuse, the Lord Jesus Christ can (and does) effectively stand at the gates of hell day-by-day, hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute and say (through the preaching of the word), “Come.” And, even though many refuse, their refusal does nothing to negate the reality – the fullness of the reality – that Jesus did, indeed, pay for them with the full redemption price. They were bought. The price has been paid in full. Yet, they did not come.

Does Full Payment = Fully Applied to All?
Does full payment, however, equate to justification, forgiveness and righteousness fully applied to each individual account, even apart from faith? Or, does it mean fully applied to one account, namely Christ’s, until faith should come along and lay hold of it by individuals.

You’ll have to come to that conclusion on your own. What I know is this…as a child of God, I have been bought and fully paid for at a price and I am no longer my own (1Co 6:19-20). Further, I will strive to do my best to surrender my will to serve my Lord as though I belong to him (Lk 17:10).

What about you? What will you do?

What do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back to Top of List

Go Back to Category Tabs

Click here, to continue to Final Thoughts.

Colossians 2:13-14 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

The Subjective Justification Card
Here, the proponent of UOJ will plainly state that the first half of the passage is referring to the subjective aspect of UOJ, while the second half is referring to the objective aspect.

Mmmm, is it just me or is that a pretty convenient way of reading Scripture in…it’s…context…sort of?

Think about it. If you were not already viewing this passage through the lens of UOJ, would you ever come up with UOJ by pulling meaning from the text?

This passage serves as a classic example of 2 serious problems with poor UOJ interpretation, 1) imposing meaning upon the text, rather than pulling meaning from the text and 2) whipping out the subjective justification card when Scripture does not fit with UOJ.

Repeatedly, I have seen instances when the Scriptures (or the Lutheran Confessions) do not support or otherwise openly deny UOJ, where the proponent of UOJ will simply say, “Well, that’s just talking about the subjective aspect of UOJ.”

Rather than clearly seeing the truth for what it is, the proponent of UOJ insists upon covering his eyes and falling back on subjective justification. This is part of the reason, it is so incredibly difficult to help the proponent of UOJ to see this false doctrine for what it is. Often times, so many who reject UOJ, point to a number of biblical passages and/or confessional quotes and say, “See, it’s obvious. Scripture and/or the Confessions teach justification by faith.” To which the proponent of UOJ simply replies, “Well, of course! That’s just referring to the subjective aspect of UOJ.”  This is part of the reason why I have attempted to take a different approach on this site, but I digress.

It’s All About Pronouns
“Ahh, but look at the change in pronouns.” The proponent of UOJ might say.

Okay, let’s do that. Let’s look at the passage again.

~ Colossians 2:13-14 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Yes, there is a change in pronouns. Paul goes from speaking about you and your to speaking of us and our.

Decide for yourself which makes more sense.

Paul is speaking to the Colossians about the Colossians, then adds other believers into the discussion, whether it be 1) Paul simply adding himself to the discussion or 2) adding himself and anyone else with him as he writes this letter to the Colossians or 3) adding himself and all believers to the discussion. Any way you look at it, everyone Paul is referring to is a believer.

Or…

Should we understand Paul’s words to mean (as proponents of UOJ would have us believe) he is speaking to the Colossians about the Colossians, then switches gears entirely and starts speaking of the whole world, believers and unbelievers alike.

Now, on the surface you might conclude it could go either way. And, it could. So, let’s run with that. If this is the case (it could go either way), then UOJ is not proved here, at best, it is speculated instead. Remember the burden of proof falls on the proponent of UOJ.

A MUCH BIGGER Problem!
If we conclude that Paul switches to speaking of the whole world (including the unbeliever), it’s not enough to hear Paul speaking of UOJ, we have to take seriously all that Paul says about the unbeliever. Here is the passage once again.

~ Colossians 2:13-14 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Let this sink in.

If there is no longer a written code with any regulations; if there is nothing against or standing opposed; if all has been fully taken away from the unbeliever, then what is left to condemn him by the law?

Keep thinking. Keep letting this sink in.

If there is nothing left to condemn him by the law, then here are some logical conclusions we could come to regarding each and every unbeliever:

1. He cannot be condemned by the law, though in theory he could be condemned by his unbelief without the condemnation of the law per-se.

2. Though, if the unbeliever is condemned by his unbelief, rather than by the law, then this disproves the law/gospel distinction argument (Category 1 – Questions 4 & 5) put forth by proponents of UOJ. One cannot be (according to the argument) forgiven by the gospel, yet stand condemned by the law (when the law has been taken away). UOJ logic is then proved faulty.

3. Further, if the unbeliever is somehow not condemned by his unbelief, yet there is also no law against him (through universalism, for example), then this too disproves the law/gospel distinction argument. UOJ logic is still proved faulty.

4. Let’s go the other direction. If the proponent of UOJ insists on clinging to his law/gospel argument, then (to be consistent) he must let go of this passage as a UOJ proof passage.  UOJ logic is proved faulty and the proponent of UOJ is proved to have read UOJ into the text of Scripture rather than drawing it from Scripture.

5. Finally, if there is no law against the unbeliever and if he does not stand condemned by his unbelief (point 3 above) then universalism must be true.  UOJ logic is proved exceedingly faulty as well as contradictory since proponents of UOJ openly reject universalism. (Actually, there is one other theoretical possibility I could think of…the unbeliever could theoretically be condemned by his inherent sinful condition, but the believer is made new in spirit/born again – made morally perfect/righteous in Christ – as discussed in Category 1 – Question 7, when faith is granted. This fact ultimately just brings us back to the previously mentioned possibility of the unbeliever being condemned due to his unbelief – as one who has NOT been made new/born again. If this whole parenthetical thought only adds to your confusion :-o, forget everything I just said inside these parentheses).

No matter how you look at it, it seems the proponent of UOJ, just can’t win with this proof passage!

Almost Done, But Not Before It Gets Worse
While these possibilities may be a lot to absorb, these are logical conclusions to be drawn, if we read UOJ into the text and assume the second half of the passage refers to the whole word (including the unbeliever).

Ahh, but let’s think about that for a moment. If the proponent of UOJ thinks these things through and is honest about the conclusions, then he must concede that this is not a valid proof passage in support of UOJ.

Yet, if he concedes that he (and every other proponent of UOJ who uses this proof text – which is commonly used) has, indeed, read UOJ into the text, then he is admitting that he has been reading UOJ into the text of Scripture – seeing and proclaiming as truth, that which just isn’t there (is falsehood). He (and/or others in his camp), has also been disfellowshipping others based upon poor interpretation of Scripture.

In other words, this is a major lose – lose proposition for the proponent of UOJ.

Once again, in further context of Colossians, as well as in the included context of the passage, anyone who is honest with the text can plainly see that Paul is referring to believers, those whom God has “made alive” with Christ as Col 2:13 clearly states.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

I know I said I would keep these Proof Passage discussions as brief as possible (and this one was originally much shorter), but the end result of drawing logical conclusions, made a lengthy explanation necessary for this “proof.” I’ve tried to keep the others shorter than this one.

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Who Else?
Who else but Jesus, is the atoning sacrifice for the sake of all the sins of the whole world?

But, what does this have to do with UOJ? Again, the question must be raised, is UOJ being pulled from the text or inserted into it?

Lost in Translation?
The NIV84 renders this text with “atoning sacrifice.” Many translations use “propitiation” instead. Either way, there is a sense of the “turning away” of God’s wrath. In other words, I would argue that this verse is saying more than Jesus is the one who was sacrificed for the whole world. It is saying that Jesus is the one who turns away God’s wrath “for” the whole world. Am I admitting UOJ works well here? Not at all.

The question becomes, what is meant by turning away wrath “for” the whole world…what does “for” mean? Does it mean Jesus is the one who has already turned away the wrath of God toward all (each one) who are in the world? Or, does it mean Jesus is the one who turns away (in an ongoing manner) God’s wrath on behalf of all who are in the world, for each one as he is granted the gift of faith.

Let’s try taking off our UOJ glasses for a moment (if you have yours on, that is) and consider whether or not this verse proves UOJ or is closer to JIC. Consider which works best as I provide my own paraphrase for the verse (I’ll include the original as well for comparison).

~ Jesus is the one who turns away the wrath of God, by way of his sacrifice – wrath which is not only due to us (as believers) because of our sins, but also due to the whole world (including unbelievers) because of the whole world’s sins.

~ 1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Is it even remotely possible that my paraphrase serves as a valid way of looking at the passage. If so, just remember that the burden of proof falls on the proponent of UOJ to demonstrate conclusively that 1Jn 2:2 must be understood, in light of UOJ and no other way. Otherwise, this is not a conclusive proof passage. At best, it only leaves UOJ as a possibility…which leaves JIC as a possibility as well.

See for Yourself
I encourage you to look up the verse in context as you also take into consideration how much John speaks of those who are in Christ, how to tell if you are in Christ, and so on, in the surrounding verses (1Jn 2:1-6).

Personally, I lean heavily toward the verse saying that propitiation, not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world, has been made and is found in Christ as a result of his sacrifice. In other words, in Christ is found the satisfaction for the wrath of God against all (the whole world’s) sin.

~ 1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here, in context?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

Romans 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

For or Because?
Here, the proponent of UOJ would argue that the two uses of the the word “for” could be better translated “because” so as to render the verse, “He was delivered over to death because of our sins and was raised to life because of our justification.”

First, though it is true that the word “for” could be translated “because” it is also true that it can rightly be rendered “for” as well. While “because” may give the impression of better support for UOJ, in the end it does not.

Even if the verse is best translated “because” it still does nothing to prove UOJ, since in this verse, Paul is (in context, and context is always king) referring to believers only.

Lutheran or Calvinist?
Gasp! But, wait! Did I just say that Christ died (and was raised) for the sins of believers only? Absolutely not! But, in my experience, this is what the proponent of UOJ will normally declare of the one who makes this objection. “You must be a Calvinist who believes in limited atonement.” he might say. But is this sound reasoning?

If Christ died for the sins of the whole world and was raised to life for the sake of the whole world, then the whole world also includes believers, correct?

Imagine I take my family to the local stadium to watch our favorite sports team play. Our team pulls out a come-from-behind victory in the last few seconds of the game. In the car, on the way home, I say to my family, “Wow! Our team gave us a great game today, didn’t they?”

When I use the words “our” and “us” who am I referring to? I am referring exclusively to myself and my family. Does this mean I am indoctrinating my family with the false teaching of limited attendance? Does this mean I believe that the team only played a great game for my family and not for the other fans in attendance at the stadium; those watching on TV; or those listening on the radio? No. It simply means that I am talking to my family about my family.

By Works, By Faith or By Existence?
In context, in the book of Romans, leading up to verse 4:25, Paul’s whole point is to help the reader understand that no one can possibly earn God’s favor…no one can become righteous through works of the law. Instead, each and every one of us needs a foreign righteousness which comes by way of faith. Paul is specifically laying out the contrast in man’s attempts to be righteous on his own vs receiving Christ’s righteousness by faith.

In this context, it makes no sense whatsoever for Paul, in the middle of his explanation of righteousness by faith and not by works of the law, to pause and say, “Oh and by the way, justification really comes to all who have ever existed or will ever exist regardless of faith or works of the law. Now, let me get back to explaining this righteousness which comes only by faith and not by works.”

The whole of the context of Romans chapters 4 and 5, screams out to us that Paul is speaking exclusively to believers about believers, not the whole world in verse 4:25.

Even If…
But let’s, for the sake of argument, say that Paul is speaking of the whole world in 4:25. It still makes far more sense for Paul to be saying, “He was delivered over to death for the sins of the whole world and was raised to life for the justification of the whole world which has been applied to Christ’s account on our behalf and is found in him and received by faith.” than it does for Paul to be saying that the whole world has had justification applied to each and every personal account, yet righteousness comes by faith and not works. (By the way, don’t forget that the proponent of UOJ says justification and righteousness are synonymous.)

Read Romans for yourself in context and allow the text to speak to you rather than imposing meaning upon the text. If you are honest with the text, I think you will rightly conclude, Paul is speaking to believers about believers in 4:25.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

1 Tim 4:10 We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

Who Else?
Who else would be the Savior of all, other than Christ?

This verse does nothing to prove objective justification. Why? Because, the verse does not speak of the justification or even forgiveness or righteousness of all, but at best (in keeping with UOJ reasoning) of the salvation of all.

Salvation For All
Moreover, some proponents have stated as much, yet somehow still deny universalism (the universal salvation of all). Consider the following (referring to 1Tim 4:10):

God is not merely the potential Savior of all people; he is the Savior of all people. If God is the Savior of all people, and Christ’s redemptive work is complete, then we can say that God saved all people in Christ. To say that God did not save all people in Christ would be to say that Jesus’ work was incomplete or not for all. (Jesus Canceled Your Debt! By Pastor Jon D. Buchholz) Emphasis is mine.

In Christ
In context, Mr. Buchholz goes on to reject universalism. By doing so, he seems to recognize some sense in which God has saved all and yet not saved all. Notice, what he does to resolve this dilemma. He says, “God saved all people in Christ.” In fact he mentions what God has done in Christ twice.

I wonder if Mr. Buchholz actually leans more toward JIC than traditional UOJ, without realizing it. By the way, I’ve seen this sort of thing quite a bit in my UOJ investigations. When the proponent of UOJ sometimes finds himself in a bit of a sticky situation theologically (trying to carry UOJ to its logical conclusion while also avoiding universalism, for example), he sometimes adds the words in Christ to his UOJisms (UOJisms, I just made that up, could you tell?).

Do I believe salvation is found in Christ? Absolutely! But how does anyone receive that which is in Christ? Scripture’s answer is to be in Christ yourself. Those who are NOT in Christ do not have that which is in Christ. Why? Because they are outside of Christ (simple, huh?). In other words, salvation is by faith alone.

UOJ or JIC? You decide.

Cake Anyone?
As for the proponent of UOJ, he regularly likes to have his cake and eat it too. He regularly likes to speak of the salvation of all, while also rejecting (for now) universalism (see Category 1 – Question 9). He likes to speak of the justification of all, while also rejecting eternal life for all, even when the “all” of Ro 5:18 refers to both justification and eternal life, for example (which we’ll look at next).

While this may be a very convenient way of interpreting Scripture, I would suggest it is not very honest with the text. Again, is UOJ being pulled from the text or imposed upon it? You’ll have to decide for yourself.

Transition
Otherwise, please take notice (in this “proof” passage) of the perfect example we have from Paul as he speaks very clearly when he is transitioning from speaking about unbelievers to speaking about believers only (“the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.”), just as John did previously (1Jn 2:2). Yet, proponents of UOJ would have us believe that Paul jumps back and forth between speaking about believers and speaking about the whole world (including unbelievers) in passages like Rom 4:25, while giving us no notice that he is doing so. While it is true that the biblical writers could have chosen to give no transition if they wanted to, maybe verses such as 1Jn 2:2 and 1Tim 4:10 can serves as a reminder that the writers might just have been in the habit of giving us a nice transition (a heads-up), instead.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

Or, 20th Century NT “Just as a single offense resulted for all mankind in condemnation, so, too, a single decree of righteousness resulted for all mankind in that declaration of righteousness which brings Life.”

Here, I have included what one proponent of UOJ has declared to be the best translation of Romans 5:18 which is from the 20^th Century NT translation.

Convenience is King?
Does anyone else find it completely convenient that the proponent of UOJ will regularly use this verse as a proof passage, while always consistently ignoring the end of the verse?

I guess I shouldn’t say he will ignore it, he will dismiss it instead.

In other words, the proponent of UOJ will teach that this passage effectively says, “Just as all have been condemned as a result of the one sin of Adam, so the one act of righteousness (or the one decree of righteousness) of Christ, has brought about the justification (declaration of righteousness) of all mankind. Oh, and forget about the ‘life’ portion of the verse because we all know God does not give eternal life to the unbeliever, only the justification/righteousness portion of the verse counts for all people. ‘All’ is not referring to those with life, only those with justification/righteousness.”

Lesson in Interpretation
Hmmm, mental note for Bible interpretation…life and justification/righteousness always get separated when referring to the objective aspect of UOJ, even when both are included in the same verse of Scripture as the object of “all” or “all mankind.” Got it!

This is what proponents of UOJ would have you believe. But, examine this verse more closely.

Closer Examination & Analysis
First, this verse does more to disprove UOJ than it does to prove it. Think about it. If UOJ were true, then it must apply to all people of all time. This includes all people before the time of Christ, going back to the beginning of time with Adam and Eve.

If UOJ were true, what this verse would actually be saying is this, “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men (who have been declared righteous whether they believe it or not), so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification for all (even those who are not only justified but also condemned) that brings life for all men (well, not really life, just justification for all…life comes only to those who believe).”

Do you see it? Universal Objective Condemnation (as I have come to call it) disproves UOJ. One cannot legitimately be declared condemned and declared justified and forgiven at the same time.

In Christ
What makes far more sense and is most consistent with Scripture (in my view) is to understand this verse to be saying something like this, “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness (or decree of righteousness applied to Christ’s account) was justification for all (hidden in Christ and applied to each personal account by faith) which also brings with it life for all men (life has been acquired for all and remains hidden in Christ and is applied to each personal account by faith…or, life has been applied to Christ’s account and is distributed to each account by faith).”

Or we might think of it this way. Just as Adam confers sin and death to all who are born from him, so Christ confers justification/righteousness and life to those who are born of him (which is available to all).

Did Christ’s justifying work bring about justification for all? Yes. But, where is this justification for all to be found? You will have to decide for yourself in light of the full testimony of Scripture. Has it been applied to each individual’s account? Or… has it been applied to Christ’s account, to be distributed to each individual only through faith?

Did Christ’s justifying work bring about life for all? Yes. But where is this life to be found? Has it been applied to all? If not, what is it about the verse which tells you life should be separated from the justification and/righteousness for all?

Natural Meaning
Consider that according to both translations, it is most natural to read and understand the verse as saying, the justification (or righteousness) which has been brought about through Christ, brings life right along with it. Look at each again and see if this isn’t true.

~ Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

~ Or, 20th Century NT “Just as a single offense resulted for all mankind in condemnation, so, too, a single decree of righteousness resulted for all mankind in that declaration of righteousness which brings Life.”

To read it and come to the conclusion that justification/righteousness should be separated from life is to read it through the lens of UOJ (or some other faulty lens) and to impose that meaning on the text. Nothing in the text, itself, suggests the two should be separated.

To separate the two is nothing more than a convenient way of supporting one’s own false doctrine.

Context is King!
By the way, since proponents of UOJ tell us that life should NOT be applied to all in the same way that justification/righteousness should be, the question becomes, “How do they know?”

“Ahh…” proponents may say, “The evidence lies in the context of the rest of Scripture, which does not allow us to conclude that all people have life.”

To which I would say, “Precisely!”

It is this same “full context of Scripture” which also does not allow us to conclude that all have been justified either. So, once again the UOJ proponent’s own argumentation works against him.

The proponent of UOJ is therefore left with the only conclusion he can come to, in an effort to cling to his false theology, “The broader context of Scripture should be taken at face value when referring to the fact that all do not have life, but it should not be taken at face value when it speaks of the fact that all have not been justified. In the case of justification, it is somehow a law gospel distinction, while in the case of eternal life it is somehow not a law/gospel distinction. In short, in the case of justification, UOJ is still true. Why? Because we say so.”

Do you see it? The real object of faith becomes the doctrine of UOJ, itself. That and a trust in the words of those who teach UOJ, over a trust in the words of Scripture. (See Q & A, Category 1)

So, what do you think…in light of the whole testimony of Scripture, does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

2 Corinthians 5:14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.

Death Is Not Justification
Yes, I agree…with Christ, all died. But death, in-and-of-itself, has nothing to do with being objectively justified. It does nothing to support UOJ.

Instead, there is a distinction being made between those who died with Christ and those who live in Christ (2Co 5:15). With Christ, all have died, yes. But only those who have life in Christ receive the forgiveness, justification and righteousness which is hidden in Christ.

Everyone else, still needs to be reconciled through the message of reconciliation for the whole world (which we’ll look at next).

And, since so many need to hear this message of reconciliation, we should probably get busy helping others to be justified, instead of spending all of our time and effort debating, this all important topic. Though, on the other hand, we should get this topic (justification) right as we go out to reconcile the world.

Well, that’s my conclusion, anyway. What do you think?

So, does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back to Top of List

Go Back to Category Tabs

2 Corinthians 5:19 God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.

Which Words Are Key?
Proponents of UOJ will tell you that the key words in this verse are “world” and “men’s” (which is sometimes translated as “their”). Proponents of UOJ will tell you that men’s is referring back to the word “world” and therefore UOJ is true since all of the world’s sins have not been counted against them.

But, does the verse say that sins have not been counted against the world (past tense). Or, does it say God was and is in the process of not counting sins against those of the world (past, present and future tense)?

You see, I would argue that the key words in the verse are “was” and “reconciling” rather than “world” and “men’s.” In the Greek, the word translated “was” carries with it a past, present and future sense. It was, is and will continue to happen. In other words, in Paul’s day, what Paul was saying is that God was (in the past), is (in the 1^st century) and will continue (until the end of time) to be reconciling the world to himself…oh, and here it comes…“in Christ” by way of not counting men’s sins against them.

Here again, the word “reconciling” (not “reconciled”) suggests something ongoing. And how will God continue to go about all of this reconciling? Context once again tells us. The way in which man is to be found having been made new in Christ, is through the message of reconciliation (2Co 5:19-21).

Be Reconciled (Present, Not Past)
This is all further evidenced by the fact that Paul goes on to implore the Corinthians to be reconciled to God. He does not say, “Isn’t it great that the whole world has been reconciled to God even apart from faith.” No, he says, “We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God (2Co 5:20).”

Reality
“In Christ” makes all the difference. In keeping with JIC, there is a sense in which we could say that the whole world has indeed been reconciled to God, BUT (and, that’s a great big BUT), that reconciliation remains in Christ.  A person has to, himself, be in Christ in order to receive that which is in Christ (namely, reconciliation – in addition to justification, forgiveness righteousness, etc.).  Those who remain outside of Christ, also remain outside of the reconciliation, justification, forgiveness and so on, which is found in Christ. 

You see, that whole “in Christ” thing, just keeps getting in the way of UOJ being valid for those outside of Christ.  And, just as those who are in Christ get all of the blessings and benefits of all that is in Christ, so too, those who are outside of Christ, get all of the “blessings” and “benefits” of that which is outside of Christ – such getting to sin all they want, as well as standing condemned, remaining under God’s wrath, and so on.

That just makes sense, in light of Scripture, doesn’t it?  Or, is it just me?  And, it makes far more sense than “some are forgiven and forgiven (objective/subjective for believers), while others are forgiven and unforgiven (objective/subjective for unbelievers).”  See: Mt 6:14-15; Mt 12:32 & Jn 20:23.

2Co 5:19 does not suggest that the whole world has been reconciled (past tense) to God, but rather that reconciliation of the world comes by way of Christ’s completed work of reconciliation and is found in Christ, received by anyone who is a part of the whole world by way of the reconciliation message which brings about a new creation (the righteousness of God – 2 Co 5:21) in Christ.

Or, at least that’s my view. You’ll have to decide for yourself, in light of Scripture.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

Romans 3:23-24 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Freely Justified
All are justified freely…amen.

All have sinned. And, how are all able to be justified? Freely by God’s grace. And, how has this grace been demonstrated/shown itself to the world? Through the redeeming work of Christ…through the redemption which is hidden in Christ and received by faith.

Notice the word “are” (often translated as “being”), “…and are justified freely.” It does not say “have been” as in “have been justified freely.” It is in the present and is ongoing, not objectively in the past.

Now, go back and read these verses in context (context is once again king) and see that everything surrounding these verses is speaking of righteousness and justification by faith. Decide for yourself if these verses speak of UOJ or if UOJ is being imposed upon the text.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Who is it who takes away the world’s sins? Only Christ. Amen.

Each Word Matters
Notice again the past, present and future sense of the word “takes.” John does not say, “Look the lamb of God who will take away the whole world’s sins.” Or, “Look the lamb of God who has taken away the whole world’s sins.” (which would make less sense, since Christ had not gone to the cross yet). No. John says, “takes away” as in ongoing.

It seems just about every time I read something from a proponent of UOJ referring to this verse, the word, “takes” is changed to “has taken.” John simply does not say, “has taken.” He says, “takes.”

Nor, does John give any indication that one day Christ’s work (which would have been in the future when John said this) should be understood in keeping with UOJ. In other words, he does not say, “will take.” No. John says, “takes”…and words matter.

Who became fully guilty of the world’s sins? Christ. Who takes away the world’s sins? Christ. Who was justified on behalf of the world? Christ. Where is the world’s justification and forgiveness for sins to be found? Is it found in each and every individual’s personal account? Or, is it found in Christ, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?

What do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back to Top of List

Go Back to Category Tabs

2 Peter 2:1 They [false teachers] will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them.

Fully Bought
Bought! Paid for! Paid in full!

Did Christ pay the full redemption price?

Absolutely!

What constitutes the fullness of a full redemption price?

Did Christ fully pay…but only for some? The Calvinist would have us think so.

Or, did he fully pay the full price for all? The good Lutheran must say, yes.

God is good. God is perfect. He does everything he does with completion, with perfection, with…fullness.

As a result, none can ever legitimately say, “The Lord did not pay the full price for the whole world…the full price for me.” Satan, the accuser, cannot legitimately say, “The full price has not been paid.”

Though many refuse, the Lord Jesus Christ can (and does) effectively stand at the gates of hell day-by-day, hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute and say (through the preaching of the word), “Come.” And, even though many refuse, their refusal does nothing to negate the reality – the fullness of the reality – that Jesus did, indeed, pay for them with the full redemption price. They were bought. The price has been paid in full. Yet, they did not come.

Does Full Payment = Fully Applied to All?
Does full payment, however, equate to justification, forgiveness and righteousness fully applied to each individual account, even apart from faith? Or, does it mean fully applied to one account, namely Christ’s, until faith should come along and lay hold of it by individuals.

You’ll have to come to that conclusion on your own. What I know is this…as a child of God, I have been bought and fully paid for at a price and I am no longer my own (1Co 6:19-20). Further, I will strive to do my best to surrender my will to serve my Lord as though I belong to him (Lk 17:10).

What about you? What will you do?

What do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back to Top of List

Go Back to Category Tabs

Click here, to continue to Final Thoughts.

Colossians 2:13-14 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

The Subjective Justification Card
Here, the proponent of UOJ will plainly state that the first half of the passage is referring to the subjective aspect of UOJ, while the second half is referring to the objective aspect.

Mmmm, is it just me or is that a pretty convenient way of reading Scripture in…it’s…context…sort of?

Think about it. If you were not already viewing this passage through the lens of UOJ, would you ever come up with UOJ by pulling meaning from the text?

This passage serves as a classic example of 2 serious problems with poor UOJ interpretation, 1) imposing meaning upon the text, rather than pulling meaning from the text and 2) whipping out the subjective justification card when Scripture does not fit with UOJ.

Repeatedly, I have seen instances when the Scriptures (or the Lutheran Confessions) do not support or otherwise openly deny UOJ, where the proponent of UOJ will simply say, “Well, that’s just talking about the subjective aspect of UOJ.”

Rather than clearly seeing the truth for what it is, the proponent of UOJ insists upon covering his eyes and falling back on subjective justification. This is part of the reason, it is so incredibly difficult to help the proponent of UOJ to see this false doctrine for what it is. Often times, so many who reject UOJ, point to a number of biblical passages and/or confessional quotes and say, “See, it’s obvious. Scripture and/or the Confessions teach justification by faith.” To which the proponent of UOJ simply replies, “Well, of course! That’s just referring to the subjective aspect of UOJ.”  This is part of the reason why I have attempted to take a different approach on this site, but I digress.

It’s All About Pronouns
“Ahh, but look at the change in pronouns.” The proponent of UOJ might say.

Okay, let’s do that. Let’s look at the passage again.

~ Colossians 2:13-14 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Yes, there is a change in pronouns. Paul goes from speaking about you and your to speaking of us and our.

Decide for yourself which makes more sense.

Paul is speaking to the Colossians about the Colossians, then adds other believers into the discussion, whether it be 1) Paul simply adding himself to the discussion or 2) adding himself and anyone else with him as he writes this letter to the Colossians or 3) adding himself and all believers to the discussion. Any way you look at it, everyone Paul is referring to is a believer.

Or…

Should we understand Paul’s words to mean (as proponents of UOJ would have us believe) he is speaking to the Colossians about the Colossians, then switches gears entirely and starts speaking of the whole world, believers and unbelievers alike.

Now, on the surface you might conclude it could go either way. And, it could. So, let’s run with that. If this is the case (it could go either way), then UOJ is not proved here, at best, it is speculated instead. Remember the burden of proof falls on the proponent of UOJ.

A MUCH BIGGER Problem!
If we conclude that Paul switches to speaking of the whole world (including the unbeliever), it’s not enough to hear Paul speaking of UOJ, we have to take seriously all that Paul says about the unbeliever. Here is the passage once again.

~ Colossians 2:13-14 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Let this sink in.

If there is no longer a written code with any regulations; if there is nothing against or standing opposed; if all has been fully taken away from the unbeliever, then what is left to condemn him by the law?

Keep thinking. Keep letting this sink in.

If there is nothing left to condemn him by the law, then here are some logical conclusions we could come to regarding each and every unbeliever:

1. He cannot be condemned by the law, though in theory he could be condemned by his unbelief without the condemnation of the law per-se.

2. Though, if the unbeliever is condemned by his unbelief, rather than by the law, then this disproves the law/gospel distinction argument (Category 1 – Questions 4 & 5) put forth by proponents of UOJ. One cannot be (according to the argument) forgiven by the gospel, yet stand condemned by the law (when the law has been taken away). UOJ logic is then proved faulty.

3. Further, if the unbeliever is somehow not condemned by his unbelief, yet there is also no law against him (through universalism, for example), then this too disproves the law/gospel distinction argument. UOJ logic is still proved faulty.

4. Let’s go the other direction. If the proponent of UOJ insists on clinging to his law/gospel argument, then (to be consistent) he must let go of this passage as a UOJ proof passage.  UOJ logic is proved faulty and the proponent of UOJ is proved to have read UOJ into the text of Scripture rather than drawing it from Scripture.

5. Finally, if there is no law against the unbeliever and if he does not stand condemned by his unbelief (point 3 above) then universalism must be true.  UOJ logic is proved exceedingly faulty as well as contradictory since proponents of UOJ openly reject universalism. (Actually, there is one other theoretical possibility I could think of…the unbeliever could theoretically be condemned by his inherent sinful condition, but the believer is made new in spirit/born again – made morally perfect/righteous in Christ – as discussed in Category 1 – Question 7, when faith is granted. This fact ultimately just brings us back to the previously mentioned possibility of the unbeliever being condemned due to his unbelief – as one who has NOT been made new/born again. If this whole parenthetical thought only adds to your confusion :-o, forget everything I just said inside these parentheses).

No matter how you look at it, it seems the proponent of UOJ, just can’t win with this proof passage!

Almost Done, But Not Before It Gets Worse
While these possibilities may be a lot to absorb, these are logical conclusions to be drawn, if we read UOJ into the text and assume the second half of the passage refers to the whole word (including the unbeliever).

Ahh, but let’s think about that for a moment. If the proponent of UOJ thinks these things through and is honest about the conclusions, then he must concede that this is not a valid proof passage in support of UOJ.

Yet, if he concedes that he (and every other proponent of UOJ who uses this proof text – which is commonly used) has, indeed, read UOJ into the text, then he is admitting that he has been reading UOJ into the text of Scripture – seeing and proclaiming as truth, that which just isn’t there (is falsehood). He (and/or others in his camp), has also been disfellowshipping others based upon poor interpretation of Scripture.

In other words, this is a major lose – lose proposition for the proponent of UOJ.

Once again, in further context of Colossians, as well as in the included context of the passage, anyone who is honest with the text can plainly see that Paul is referring to believers, those whom God has “made alive” with Christ as Col 2:13 clearly states.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

I know I said I would keep these Proof Passage discussions as brief as possible (and this one was originally much shorter), but the end result of drawing logical conclusions, made a lengthy explanation necessary for this “proof.” I’ve tried to keep the others shorter than this one.

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Who Else?
Who else but Jesus, is the atoning sacrifice for the sake of all the sins of the whole world?

But, what does this have to do with UOJ? Again, the question must be raised, is UOJ being pulled from the text or inserted into it?

Lost in Translation?
The NIV84 renders this text with “atoning sacrifice.” Many translations use “propitiation” instead. Either way, there is a sense of the “turning away” of God’s wrath. In other words, I would argue that this verse is saying more than Jesus is the one who was sacrificed for the whole world. It is saying that Jesus is the one who turns away God’s wrath “for” the whole world. Am I admitting UOJ works well here? Not at all.

The question becomes, what is meant by turning away wrath “for” the whole world…what does “for” mean? Does it mean Jesus is the one who has already turned away the wrath of God toward all (each one) who are in the world? Or, does it mean Jesus is the one who turns away (in an ongoing manner) God’s wrath on behalf of all who are in the world, for each one as he is granted the gift of faith.

Let’s try taking off our UOJ glasses for a moment (if you have yours on, that is) and consider whether or not this verse proves UOJ or is closer to JIC. Consider which works best as I provide my own paraphrase for the verse (I’ll include the original as well for comparison).

~ Jesus is the one who turns away the wrath of God, by way of his sacrifice – wrath which is not only due to us (as believers) because of our sins, but also due to the whole world (including unbelievers) because of the whole world’s sins.

~ 1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Is it even remotely possible that my paraphrase serves as a valid way of looking at the passage. If so, just remember that the burden of proof falls on the proponent of UOJ to demonstrate conclusively that 1Jn 2:2 must be understood, in light of UOJ and no other way. Otherwise, this is not a conclusive proof passage. At best, it only leaves UOJ as a possibility…which leaves JIC as a possibility as well.

See for Yourself
I encourage you to look up the verse in context as you also take into consideration how much John speaks of those who are in Christ, how to tell if you are in Christ, and so on, in the surrounding verses (1Jn 2:1-6).

Personally, I lean heavily toward the verse saying that propitiation, not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world, has been made and is found in Christ as a result of his sacrifice. In other words, in Christ is found the satisfaction for the wrath of God against all (the whole world’s) sin.

~ 1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here, in context?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

Romans 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

For or Because?
Here, the proponent of UOJ would argue that the two uses of the the word “for” could be better translated “because” so as to render the verse, “He was delivered over to death because of our sins and was raised to life because of our justification.”

First, though it is true that the word “for” could be translated “because” it is also true that it can rightly be rendered “for” as well. While “because” may give the impression of better support for UOJ, in the end it does not.

Even if the verse is best translated “because” it still does nothing to prove UOJ, since in this verse, Paul is (in context, and context is always king) referring to believers only.

Lutheran or Calvinist?
Gasp! But, wait! Did I just say that Christ died (and was raised) for the sins of believers only? Absolutely not! But, in my experience, this is what the proponent of UOJ will normally declare of the one who makes this objection. “You must be a Calvinist who believes in limited atonement.” he might say. But is this sound reasoning?

If Christ died for the sins of the whole world and was raised to life for the sake of the whole world, then the whole world also includes believers, correct?

Imagine I take my family to the local stadium to watch our favorite sports team play. Our team pulls out a come-from-behind victory in the last few seconds of the game. In the car, on the way home, I say to my family, “Wow! Our team gave us a great game today, didn’t they?”

When I use the words “our” and “us” who am I referring to? I am referring exclusively to myself and my family. Does this mean I am indoctrinating my family with the false teaching of limited attendance? Does this mean I believe that the team only played a great game for my family and not for the other fans in attendance at the stadium; those watching on TV; or those listening on the radio? No. It simply means that I am talking to my family about my family.

By Works, By Faith or By Existence?
In context, in the book of Romans, leading up to verse 4:25, Paul’s whole point is to help the reader understand that no one can possibly earn God’s favor…no one can become righteous through works of the law. Instead, each and every one of us needs a foreign righteousness which comes by way of faith. Paul is specifically laying out the contrast in man’s attempts to be righteous on his own vs receiving Christ’s righteousness by faith.

In this context, it makes no sense whatsoever for Paul, in the middle of his explanation of righteousness by faith and not by works of the law, to pause and say, “Oh and by the way, justification really comes to all who have ever existed or will ever exist regardless of faith or works of the law. Now, let me get back to explaining this righteousness which comes only by faith and not by works.”

The whole of the context of Romans chapters 4 and 5, screams out to us that Paul is speaking exclusively to believers about believers, not the whole world in verse 4:25.

Even If…
But let’s, for the sake of argument, say that Paul is speaking of the whole world in 4:25. It still makes far more sense for Paul to be saying, “He was delivered over to death for the sins of the whole world and was raised to life for the justification of the whole world which has been applied to Christ’s account on our behalf and is found in him and received by faith.” than it does for Paul to be saying that the whole world has had justification applied to each and every personal account, yet righteousness comes by faith and not works. (By the way, don’t forget that the proponent of UOJ says justification and righteousness are synonymous.)

Read Romans for yourself in context and allow the text to speak to you rather than imposing meaning upon the text. If you are honest with the text, I think you will rightly conclude, Paul is speaking to believers about believers in 4:25.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

1 Tim 4:10 We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

Who Else?
Who else would be the Savior of all, other than Christ?

This verse does nothing to prove objective justification. Why? Because, the verse does not speak of the justification or even forgiveness or righteousness of all, but at best (in keeping with UOJ reasoning) of the salvation of all.

Salvation For All
Moreover, some proponents have stated as much, yet somehow still deny universalism (the universal salvation of all). Consider the following (referring to 1Tim 4:10):

God is not merely the potential Savior of all people; he is the Savior of all people. If God is the Savior of all people, and Christ’s redemptive work is complete, then we can say that God saved all people in Christ. To say that God did not save all people in Christ would be to say that Jesus’ work was incomplete or not for all. (Jesus Canceled Your Debt! By Pastor Jon D. Buchholz) Emphasis is mine.

In Christ
In context, Mr. Buchholz goes on to reject universalism. By doing so, he seems to recognize some sense in which God has saved all and yet not saved all. Notice, what he does to resolve this dilemma. He says, “God saved all people in Christ.” In fact he mentions what God has done in Christ twice.

I wonder if Mr. Buchholz actually leans more toward JIC than traditional UOJ, without realizing it. By the way, I’ve seen this sort of thing quite a bit in my UOJ investigations. When the proponent of UOJ sometimes finds himself in a bit of a sticky situation theologically (trying to carry UOJ to its logical conclusion while also avoiding universalism, for example), he sometimes adds the words in Christ to his UOJisms (UOJisms, I just made that up, could you tell?).

Do I believe salvation is found in Christ? Absolutely! But how does anyone receive that which is in Christ? Scripture’s answer is to be in Christ yourself. Those who are NOT in Christ do not have that which is in Christ. Why? Because they are outside of Christ (simple, huh?). In other words, salvation is by faith alone.

UOJ or JIC? You decide.

Cake Anyone?
As for the proponent of UOJ, he regularly likes to have his cake and eat it too. He regularly likes to speak of the salvation of all, while also rejecting (for now) universalism (see Category 1 – Question 9). He likes to speak of the justification of all, while also rejecting eternal life for all, even when the “all” of Ro 5:18 refers to both justification and eternal life, for example (which we’ll look at next).

While this may be a very convenient way of interpreting Scripture, I would suggest it is not very honest with the text. Again, is UOJ being pulled from the text or imposed upon it? You’ll have to decide for yourself.

Transition
Otherwise, please take notice (in this “proof” passage) of the perfect example we have from Paul as he speaks very clearly when he is transitioning from speaking about unbelievers to speaking about believers only (“the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.”), just as John did previously (1Jn 2:2). Yet, proponents of UOJ would have us believe that Paul jumps back and forth between speaking about believers and speaking about the whole world (including unbelievers) in passages like Rom 4:25, while giving us no notice that he is doing so. While it is true that the biblical writers could have chosen to give no transition if they wanted to, maybe verses such as 1Jn 2:2 and 1Tim 4:10 can serves as a reminder that the writers might just have been in the habit of giving us a nice transition (a heads-up), instead.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

Or, 20th Century NT “Just as a single offense resulted for all mankind in condemnation, so, too, a single decree of righteousness resulted for all mankind in that declaration of righteousness which brings Life.”

Here, I have included what one proponent of UOJ has declared to be the best translation of Romans 5:18 which is from the 20^th Century NT translation.

Convenience is King?
Does anyone else find it completely convenient that the proponent of UOJ will regularly use this verse as a proof passage, while always consistently ignoring the end of the verse?

I guess I shouldn’t say he will ignore it, he will dismiss it instead.

In other words, the proponent of UOJ will teach that this passage effectively says, “Just as all have been condemned as a result of the one sin of Adam, so the one act of righteousness (or the one decree of righteousness) of Christ, has brought about the justification (declaration of righteousness) of all mankind. Oh, and forget about the ‘life’ portion of the verse because we all know God does not give eternal life to the unbeliever, only the justification/righteousness portion of the verse counts for all people. ‘All’ is not referring to those with life, only those with justification/righteousness.”

Lesson in Interpretation
Hmmm, mental note for Bible interpretation…life and justification/righteousness always get separated when referring to the objective aspect of UOJ, even when both are included in the same verse of Scripture as the object of “all” or “all mankind.” Got it!

This is what proponents of UOJ would have you believe. But, examine this verse more closely.

Closer Examination & Analysis
First, this verse does more to disprove UOJ than it does to prove it. Think about it. If UOJ were true, then it must apply to all people of all time. This includes all people before the time of Christ, going back to the beginning of time with Adam and Eve.

If UOJ were true, what this verse would actually be saying is this, “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men (who have been declared righteous whether they believe it or not), so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification for all (even those who are not only justified but also condemned) that brings life for all men (well, not really life, just justification for all…life comes only to those who believe).”

Do you see it? Universal Objective Condemnation (as I have come to call it) disproves UOJ. One cannot legitimately be declared condemned and declared justified and forgiven at the same time.

In Christ
What makes far more sense and is most consistent with Scripture (in my view) is to understand this verse to be saying something like this, “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness (or decree of righteousness applied to Christ’s account) was justification for all (hidden in Christ and applied to each personal account by faith) which also brings with it life for all men (life has been acquired for all and remains hidden in Christ and is applied to each personal account by faith…or, life has been applied to Christ’s account and is distributed to each account by faith).”

Or we might think of it this way. Just as Adam confers sin and death to all who are born from him, so Christ confers justification/righteousness and life to those who are born of him (which is available to all).

Did Christ’s justifying work bring about justification for all? Yes. But, where is this justification for all to be found? You will have to decide for yourself in light of the full testimony of Scripture. Has it been applied to each individual’s account? Or… has it been applied to Christ’s account, to be distributed to each individual only through faith?

Did Christ’s justifying work bring about life for all? Yes. But where is this life to be found? Has it been applied to all? If not, what is it about the verse which tells you life should be separated from the justification and/righteousness for all?

Natural Meaning
Consider that according to both translations, it is most natural to read and understand the verse as saying, the justification (or righteousness) which has been brought about through Christ, brings life right along with it. Look at each again and see if this isn’t true.

~ Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

~ Or, 20th Century NT “Just as a single offense resulted for all mankind in condemnation, so, too, a single decree of righteousness resulted for all mankind in that declaration of righteousness which brings Life.”

To read it and come to the conclusion that justification/righteousness should be separated from life is to read it through the lens of UOJ (or some other faulty lens) and to impose that meaning on the text. Nothing in the text, itself, suggests the two should be separated.

To separate the two is nothing more than a convenient way of supporting one’s own false doctrine.

Context is King!
By the way, since proponents of UOJ tell us that life should NOT be applied to all in the same way that justification/righteousness should be, the question becomes, “How do they know?”

“Ahh…” proponents may say, “The evidence lies in the context of the rest of Scripture, which does not allow us to conclude that all people have life.”

To which I would say, “Precisely!”

It is this same “full context of Scripture” which also does not allow us to conclude that all have been justified either. So, once again the UOJ proponent’s own argumentation works against him.

The proponent of UOJ is therefore left with the only conclusion he can come to, in an effort to cling to his false theology, “The broader context of Scripture should be taken at face value when referring to the fact that all do not have life, but it should not be taken at face value when it speaks of the fact that all have not been justified. In the case of justification, it is somehow a law gospel distinction, while in the case of eternal life it is somehow not a law/gospel distinction. In short, in the case of justification, UOJ is still true. Why? Because we say so.”

Do you see it? The real object of faith becomes the doctrine of UOJ, itself. That and a trust in the words of those who teach UOJ, over a trust in the words of Scripture. (See Q & A, Category 1)

So, what do you think…in light of the whole testimony of Scripture, does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

2 Corinthians 5:14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.

Death Is Not Justification
Yes, I agree…with Christ, all died. But death, in-and-of-itself, has nothing to do with being objectively justified. It does nothing to support UOJ.

Instead, there is a distinction being made between those who died with Christ and those who live in Christ (2Co 5:15). With Christ, all have died, yes. But only those who have life in Christ receive the forgiveness, justification and righteousness which is hidden in Christ.

Everyone else, still needs to be reconciled through the message of reconciliation for the whole world (which we’ll look at next).

And, since so many need to hear this message of reconciliation, we should probably get busy helping others to be justified, instead of spending all of our time and effort debating, this all important topic. Though, on the other hand, we should get this topic (justification) right as we go out to reconcile the world.

Well, that’s my conclusion, anyway. What do you think?

So, does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back to Top of List

Go Back to Category Tabs

2 Corinthians 5:19 God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.

Which Words Are Key?
Proponents of UOJ will tell you that the key words in this verse are “world” and “men’s” (which is sometimes translated as “their”). Proponents of UOJ will tell you that men’s is referring back to the word “world” and therefore UOJ is true since all of the world’s sins have not been counted against them.

But, does the verse say that sins have not been counted against the world (past tense). Or, does it say God was and is in the process of not counting sins against those of the world (past, present and future tense)?

You see, I would argue that the key words in the verse are “was” and “reconciling” rather than “world” and “men’s.” In the Greek, the word translated “was” carries with it a past, present and future sense. It was, is and will continue to happen. In other words, in Paul’s day, what Paul was saying is that God was (in the past), is (in the 1^st century) and will continue (until the end of time) to be reconciling the world to himself…oh, and here it comes…“in Christ” by way of not counting men’s sins against them.

Here again, the word “reconciling” (not “reconciled”) suggests something ongoing. And how will God continue to go about all of this reconciling? Context once again tells us. The way in which man is to be found having been made new in Christ, is through the message of reconciliation (2Co 5:19-21).

Be Reconciled (Present, Not Past)
This is all further evidenced by the fact that Paul goes on to implore the Corinthians to be reconciled to God. He does not say, “Isn’t it great that the whole world has been reconciled to God even apart from faith.” No, he says, “We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God (2Co 5:20).”

Reality
“In Christ” makes all the difference. In keeping with JIC, there is a sense in which we could say that the whole world has indeed been reconciled to God, BUT (and, that’s a great big BUT), that reconciliation remains in Christ.  A person has to, himself, be in Christ in order to receive that which is in Christ (namely, reconciliation – in addition to justification, forgiveness righteousness, etc.).  Those who remain outside of Christ, also remain outside of the reconciliation, justification, forgiveness and so on, which is found in Christ. 

You see, that whole “in Christ” thing, just keeps getting in the way of UOJ being valid for those outside of Christ.  And, just as those who are in Christ get all of the blessings and benefits of all that is in Christ, so too, those who are outside of Christ, get all of the “blessings” and “benefits” of that which is outside of Christ – such getting to sin all they want, as well as standing condemned, remaining under God’s wrath, and so on.

That just makes sense, in light of Scripture, doesn’t it?  Or, is it just me?  And, it makes far more sense than “some are forgiven and forgiven (objective/subjective for believers), while others are forgiven and unforgiven (objective/subjective for unbelievers).”  See: Mt 6:14-15; Mt 12:32 & Jn 20:23.

2Co 5:19 does not suggest that the whole world has been reconciled (past tense) to God, but rather that reconciliation of the world comes by way of Christ’s completed work of reconciliation and is found in Christ, received by anyone who is a part of the whole world by way of the reconciliation message which brings about a new creation (the righteousness of God – 2 Co 5:21) in Christ.

Or, at least that’s my view. You’ll have to decide for yourself, in light of Scripture.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

Romans 3:23-24 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Freely Justified
All are justified freely…amen.

All have sinned. And, how are all able to be justified? Freely by God’s grace. And, how has this grace been demonstrated/shown itself to the world? Through the redeeming work of Christ…through the redemption which is hidden in Christ and received by faith.

Notice the word “are” (often translated as “being”), “…and are justified freely.” It does not say “have been” as in “have been justified freely.” It is in the present and is ongoing, not objectively in the past.

Now, go back and read these verses in context (context is once again king) and see that everything surrounding these verses is speaking of righteousness and justification by faith. Decide for yourself if these verses speak of UOJ or if UOJ is being imposed upon the text.

So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Who is it who takes away the world’s sins? Only Christ. Amen.

Each Word Matters
Notice again the past, present and future sense of the word “takes.” John does not say, “Look the lamb of God who will take away the whole world’s sins.” Or, “Look the lamb of God who has taken away the whole world’s sins.” (which would make less sense, since Christ had not gone to the cross yet). No. John says, “takes away” as in ongoing.

It seems just about every time I read something from a proponent of UOJ referring to this verse, the word, “takes” is changed to “has taken.” John simply does not say, “has taken.” He says, “takes.”

Nor, does John give any indication that one day Christ’s work (which would have been in the future when John said this) should be understood in keeping with UOJ. In other words, he does not say, “will take.” No. John says, “takes”…and words matter.

Who became fully guilty of the world’s sins? Christ. Who takes away the world’s sins? Christ. Who was justified on behalf of the world? Christ. Where is the world’s justification and forgiveness for sins to be found? Is it found in each and every individual’s personal account? Or, is it found in Christ, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?

What do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back to Top of List

Go Back to Category Tabs

2 Peter 2:1 They [false teachers] will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them.

Fully Bought
Bought! Paid for! Paid in full!

Did Christ pay the full redemption price?

Absolutely!

What constitutes the fullness of a full redemption price?

Did Christ fully pay…but only for some? The Calvinist would have us think so.

Or, did he fully pay the full price for all? The good Lutheran must say, yes.

God is good. God is perfect. He does everything he does with completion, with perfection, with…fullness.

As a result, none can ever legitimately say, “The Lord did not pay the full price for the whole world…the full price for me.” Satan, the accuser, cannot legitimately say, “The full price has not been paid.”

Though many refuse, the Lord Jesus Christ can (and does) effectively stand at the gates of hell day-by-day, hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute and say (through the preaching of the word), “Come.” And, even though many refuse, their refusal does nothing to negate the reality – the fullness of the reality – that Jesus did, indeed, pay for them with the full redemption price. They were bought. The price has been paid in full. Yet, they did not come.

Does Full Payment = Fully Applied to All?
Does full payment, however, equate to justification, forgiveness and righteousness fully applied to each individual account, even apart from faith? Or, does it mean fully applied to one account, namely Christ’s, until faith should come along and lay hold of it by individuals.

You’ll have to come to that conclusion on your own. What I know is this…as a child of God, I have been bought and fully paid for at a price and I am no longer my own (1Co 6:19-20). Further, I will strive to do my best to surrender my will to serve my Lord as though I belong to him (Lk 17:10).

What about you? What will you do?

What do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?

Go Back to Top of List

Go Back to Category Tabs

Click here, to continue to Final Thoughts.