Glad you’re here (or click here for a PDF of this site’s content).
For many years, the teaching of Universal Objective Justification (we’ll call it UOJ) has sparked a lot of debate and/or confusion as Lutheran Christians have attempted to “wrap their heads around” the true meaning and significance of this all-important doctrine. (For clarity, this site addresses the topic of UOJ as taught by Lutherans not other variations such as are found in other Christian circles.)
The objectives of this site are to:
1. Take UOJ and boil it down to it’s bare bones in an effort to make it as clear and easy to understand as possible (not always so easy to accomplish)
2. Point out some of the confusion and controversy surrounding UOJ, while attempting to keep things as simple as possible in order to avoid further misunderstanding and/or confusion
3. Lay out a clear and concise scriptural view of justification
4. Address common questions/objections about UOJ in general and/or (more specifically) the information provided on this site
5. Keep things lighthearted as we dive into such an important and heavy subject
6. Honor and glorify God with the information presented here
Navigating the Site The site has been laid out primarily as a one-page parallax site. The majority of the content is on this one page and is divided into sections which coincide with the main menu navigation (above), as well as the floating sidebar navigation menu (to the right). Each section (and its content) naturally flows into the next as you either scroll down or navigate (using the menus) down the page. It’s recommended that you read through each section in order (beginning to end), as you make your way down the page.
Having said that, you might find you desire to skip around a bit once you reach the Q & A section, which itself, is divided into 3 Category Tabs with a series of Q & A’s listed under each tab.
The Q & A section is pretty extensive, so don’t forget to round out your journey through the site content, by continuing to the Final Thoughts section.
That’s about all I’ve got for you in this introduction, so let’s jump right in.
UOJ Basics
The Basics of UOJ First things first. UOJ stands for Universal Objective Justification. Each word is very important. Let’s look at each term individually:
“When we put all three of these terms together, what we end up with is this: All people for all time have been legally declared, “not guilty.”
Universal The universal aspect of UOJ refers to the fact that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was for all people, of all time…it’s (get this…) universal. So too, according to the teaching of UOJ, God has justified the whole world (all people, for all time…everybody…not one single person left out), through the “once-for-all” sacrifice of Christ.
Objective The objective aspect of UOJ refers to (now, don’t over think this just yet) the concept that the universality of God’s justification is true, even if some people don’t believe it. Put another way, according to the doctrine of UOJ, all people (the whole world, every single person…well, hopefully you’ve got that part by now) have been justified whether or not anyone is aware of it, understands it, or believes it. It is said to be objectively true, even if you don’t know about it. One might say, “It’s not true when or because you believe it, rather you should believe it because it is true.”
Justification Justification simply refers to God’s formal (if you will) legal declaration that a sinner has been found “not guilty” in the eyes of God. This is not because a person is without sin, but because each and every sin has been accounted for, by way of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice on the cross.
UOJ in a Nutshell When we put all three of these terms together, what we end up with is this: All people for all time have been legally declared, “not guilty,” not because each one is without sin (or because their sin does not matter), but because Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was fully sufficient and therefore no one during his lifetime (this side of eternity) is legally held accountable for his wrongdoings in the eyes of God (more on this in a moment).
In other words, UOJ teaches us that according to God’s courtroom judgement, justice has been served and therefore, all have been found “not guilty.”
Once again, UOJ states clearly that this is objectively true, even if no one believes it. In other words, this universal justification is not dependent upon faith. This legal declaration is said to be true with or without faith.
I know, I know, I can practically hear (through your internet connection) all of the objections being raised. What about faith? Doesn’t the Bible teach justification by faith? Wasn’t the Reformation all about justification by faith A-L-O-N-E!
Well, before we can rightly move on from here, there is one more very important word which gets added to the UOJ mix…the word, “subjective.”
The Subjective Aspect of UOJ Understood correctly, UOJ teaches us that even though God’s declaration of “not guilty” applies to all people of all time, even if they do not believe it (or are even aware of it), no one receives the benefit of this declaration unless he “apprehends” it through saving faith. This is known as Subjective Justification.
We might think of it this way, UOJ teaches that all (each and every one) are objectively justified with or without faith, but each one is subjectively (personally) justified only through faith. Therefore (though not in this lifetime, as mentioned above), the unbeliever will be held accountable for his sin in eternity (the next “life”).
Confused?
Hold on, there’s more. Unfortunately, things may seem to get a bit worse before they get better. But, hang in there, I’ve done my very best to keep the complicated nature of the topic as simple as possible and (I hope) you will find much clarity in all I have included, particularly when we look at the God Says section of the site. But, we’re not quite there yet. Stay with me.
Ready? Here we go.
Controversy
A Controversial Teaching
Confusion The subject of UOJ is a controversial one, if for no other reason, because it can be soooo confusing for soooo many. And, in my experience, the way in which it is often taught only leads to further confusion.
Such as this…often times when teaching on the subject of UOJ pastors, professors and others use biblical concepts (and the words associated with them) interchangeably/synonymously. For example, the conversation will not be exclusively about justification alone, but instead it will be about justification, acquittal, forgiveness, and righteousness with each of these terms being used interchangeably. More than this, the discussion often comes with little to no explanation as to why these words can or should be used interchangeably or how someone came to this conclusion.
Now, imagine sitting through an hour-long Bible class while continually going back and forth from justification to forgiveness to righteousness to acquittal and back to justification again and so on. Ugh!
Beyond Confusion But, the controversy associated with UOJ goes well beyond mere confusion. Many would argue that the doctrine of justification is at the heart and center of all of Scripture. How is man made right with God and restored to him? Is this not what the Christian faith, indeed the whole of our existence in a fallen world, is all about?
Any variation in beliefs on this topic and we can expect debate, attempts at correction, sinful temperatures rising and yes, controversy.
Furthermore, over the years, numerous church members, pastors and even whole congregations have been disfellowshiped from their church body for disagreeing with UOJ.
Yes, UOJ is a confusing and controversial teaching.
Simplicity & Clarity But what if the doctrine of justification doesn’t need to be so complicated? What if it doesn’t need to be so divisive?
What if…
What if Scripture actually speaks more clearly than those on either side of the debate have allowed themselves to consider or to comprehend?
What if…gasp…those on both sides of the debate are…actually…right? Huh?
What’s Possible? Some will say, “But, that’s not possible!”
Or, is it? Don’t dismiss this possibility too quickly. Don’t forget, “With God, all things are….”
Well…just keep reading.
First, we’ll look at both sides of the debate in some detail. Then, we’ll look to see how God’s truth may have already brought both sides of the debate together, while debaters were busy focusing too heavily on Lutheranwritings rather than on that which was right in front of them in God’s Word all along.
Could it really be that simple? See for yourself.
First things first, though. So, what exactly is this debate all about anyhow?
Key Concept
Justification For All Here’s a statement for you. “Justification for the whole world, both believer and unbeliever alike!”
Yay! Sounds great, doesn’t it?
Did you know there is a sense in which both proponents and opponents of UOJ could agree on the above statement? It’s true. Yet, it is true only because each side would cling to one of two very different meanings for the statement.
And, I would suggest this is the key concept for a correct understanding of UOJ and the debate associated with it. This is what it all boils down to. Everything hinges on this. (Are you getting the hint? This really matters!) When it comes to the subject of UOJ, the importance of what I am about to share cannot be overstated.
Here it is:
Available or Realized (Acquired or Applied)? Is justification “merely” available on behalf of the whole world or has it been fully realized for the whole world?
What’s the difference?
Many Lutherans (though certainly not all) believe in UOJ (pretty obvious, right?). Many others, however, reject UOJ in favor of (what has become known as) Justification By Faith Alone (JBFA – because, after all, Lutheranism needs more initials and/or acronyms…ya know, we’ve got ELCA, LCMS, WELS, ELS, UOJ, etc. Why not JBFA too? And, just for fun, I’ll add another to the mix in just a bit.) 😉
As I stated, each side (proponents of UOJ as well as proponents of JBFA) could agree on my carefully worded statement from above, “Justification for the whole world, both believer and unbeliever alike!”
Yet, each side would cling to a different meaning behind this statement. And, it all comes down to (what I have come to call) the distinction between available vs realized justification.
Please hear me correctly. I suspect many have concluded that the debate is all about whether or not the objective aspect of UOJ is true or not. And, in a sense, that would be an accurate assessment. But, the whole thing goes even deeper than this. More than just whether or not objective justification is true, is the question of exactly how the objective aspect of justification is defined.
You see, I personally believed in UOJ for quite some time…or, so I thought.
“Objective justification (as it is officially defined) means that forgiveness is more than “merely” available, yet it is less than fully received…it’s realized justification.
But after years of digging into it deeper, trying to figure out why (on the one hand) I believed UOJ, even while (on the other hand) I found that it didn’t quite sit well with me either, I finally came to understand there was a subtle (or not so subtle) distinction to be made in my belief system. I had come to recognize that all along, I had been effectively believing that objective justification meant that justification, forgiveness, righteousness, etc. were all fully available on behalf of each and every individual person, but not realized for all. Christ had (in my view) won each person’s forgiveness and so in a sense, there was real-deal, viable, tangible (if you will) forgiveness for all, yet this forgiveness was not fully realized (again, in my view) for each person (including the unbeliever). In other words, what I had finally come to understand for myself is that for many years I had been trying to force “realized justification for all” into my “available justification for all” understanding of Scripture. One might even say that all along I had been believing all were forgiven (inChrist), yet through available, not realized justification.
That last sentence is soooo important, I’m going to repeat it (but, I’ll wait to fully explain it in the next section). Here it is…”One might even say that all along I had been believing all were forgiven (in Christ), yet through available, not realized justification.”
In the end, an online debate led me to more fully recognize the details of this conflict within my own understanding of justification. Moreover, I suspect there could be a similar conflict (or misunderstanding) for many others as well. Therefore, I have become compelled to not only understand the matter better for myself, but also to share my findings with others.
The long and the short of it is this…as it turned out, I discovered that my understanding (my belief in UOJ) was not really UOJ (as it is actually defined) after all!
Objective justification (as it is officially defined) means that forgiveness is more than “merely” available, yet it is less than fully received…it’s realized justification.
What?
Let’s unpack each of these three terms – available vs realized vs received. (By the way, this could get a bit confusing – such is the nature of UOJ – but, I have included a visual representation at the end of this discussion for clarity…stick with me.)
Available (Acquired) Let’s start with the JBFA view of what happened at the cross. Available justification has to do with the idea that, at the cross, Christ won, earned or acquired (whatever you’d like to call it) justification for all, yet it has NOT been realized for anyone apart from faith. In other words, though it is available, it does not specifically (individually) apply to (is not applicable for) the unbeliever in any way, shape or form due to his unbelief.
Put still another way, according to this view, it would be correct to say, “Throughfaith your sins are forgiven.” but would be wrong to say, “You are forgiven whether you believe it or not.”
The takeaway from this point of view is that justification is only available for the unbeliever because it has only been acquired (not realized) for him on his behalf until faith should come along and apprehend it. The keyword as we move forward on this site is acquired.
Realized (Applied) By contrast, realized justification (what I also refer to as applied justification, in that it is applicable, though not fully received by each individual…more on this in a bit) is simply a way of describing what is taught regarding the objective aspect of UOJ. According to UOJ, all people (including each and every unbeliever) have been actually justified, meaning justification is a real, genuine, literal (whatever you’d like to call it) aspect (reality) of their personal existence. In other words, justification has been fully real-ized (actualized or made real) in regard to each person’s individual life, yet, though this reality (according to UOJ) is said to be true, it is not a reality to the same extent that received justification is.
In keeping with this view, it would be correct to say, “You are forgiven whether you believe it or not.” as well as saying, “But, you don’t receive the benefits of this forgiveness except through faith. Without faith, though you are forgiven (through a legal declaration), you ALSO still stand condemned in your sins.” Yet, it would be wrong to say, “God will forgive you, if/when you have faith.”
The takeaway from this point of view is that justification has been fully realized for the unbeliever. It already applies to him in his life (is applicable to him), yet has not become his received possession until faith should come along and lay hold of it. The keyword as we move forward on this site is applied.
Now, it is worth noting that some proponents of UOJ may take exception with my use of the word applied, here. They might argue that the word applied can be used to mean the same thing as credited. Agreed. It can mean that. And some have used it in this way. But, on this site, I have used it (and will continue to use it) in a different way (to mean real-ized) just as others have done so elsewhere. If you find you take exception to this (no offense), but I encourage you to get over it. On this site, it simply means applicable or real-ized…just run with it.😉 When I mean to say credited, I will use the word credited (or Scripture quotations may use counted or reckoned).
Received (Credited) Finally, there is received (or credited) justification. Both sides (UOJ and JBFA) effectively agree on received justification. Namely, that God has fully credited justification, forgiveness, righteousness to the believer’s account which has, as a result, been received through his faith.
This is what those on the side of UOJ would call the subjective aspect of UOJ, while those in the JBFA camp would say it is the only form (if you will) of justification.
The takeaway from this point of view is that justification has been fully credited and received. The keyword as we move forward on this site is credited.
Clear as mud?
If so, maybe this can add some clarity:
Table 1
For Further Clarity In an attempt to simplify the complicated (convoluted) nature of the topic of UOJ, what I have attempted to do next is to show both sides of the equation (both God’s and Man’s) as it pertains to both JBFA and UOJ. In other words, I have essentially demonstrated both the cause and the effect of justification.
For example, according to JBFA, what God has done through Jesus at the cross is that he has acquired justification. The resulting benefit for man, therefore, is that his justification has been made available to him through faith in Christ.
The whole situation looks something like this:
Table 2
Clarity or Confusion? So, where do you find yourself at this point? Is everything becoming clear or is it still muddled? Do you understand completely or are things still rather confusing? UOJ and the whole UOJ/JBFA debate can certainly be a lot to grasp. Hopefully, the real clarity will come when we dig into the text of Scripture itself to see what God has to say about justification.
Get ready? This is, by far, my favorite part of the site. Let’s feed on some good old bread from heaven, shall we?
God Says
What God Says About Justification Before looking at God’s Word, we must first lay a little ground work.
Under My Skin I once came upon an online debate of UOJ. Strong views were coming from both sides – views from those for and from those against. Part of the discussion centered around the key concept of acquired vs applied (meaning realized, not credited) justification and forgiveness, apart from saving faith.
This discussion of acquired vs applied justification really stuck with me…it got under my skin, so to speak. Then, the light bulb went on and it struck me that, “This is it!” This is what the whole debate comes down to.
Did Christ only acquire justification for all (to be credited through saving faith) or did God apply (realize) justification for each and every individual, even for those still in unbelief?
Various arguments were made for each side of the acquired/applied debate, yet as I recall, most (if not all) were arguments from reason and logic rather than from Scripture.
But, what if it’s all right there in God’s word? Further, what if it’s not an either/or equation, but a both/and equation?
What do I mean?
Pause… UOJ is effectively a Lutheran doctrine (at least as it is spoken of on this site). As such, I recognize that I am writing primarily to Lutherans – Lutherans who are often accustomed to quoting Luther, the Confessions and/or other “Lutheran Fathers” nearly as often as (if not more often than) Scripture when it comes to a discussion of UOJ. On this site, little attention is given to these extra-biblical sources (the words of men), while heavy emphasis is given to Scripture (the Word of God)…gasp. 😮
Having said that, I would like to introduce our investigation of Scripture by utilizing one single quote from Luther to set up a biblical discussion.
Luther on Acquired vs Applied
“It is a faithful saying that Christ has accomplished everything, has removed sin and overcome every enemy, so that through Him we are lords over all things. But the treasure lies yet in one pile; it is not yet distributed nor invested. Consequently, ifwe are to possess it, the Holy Spirit must come and teach our hearts to believe and say: I, too, am one of those who are to have this treasure. When we feel that God has thus helped us and given the treasure to us, everything goes well…” Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, III, p. 279. Pentecost Sunday. John 14:23-31.J-528 (Emphasis is mine)
Note that Luther states that this treasure lies in one pile and has not yet been distributed nor invested. In other words, it seems he is saying this treasure has been acquired, yet seemingly not made a reality (applied) for each and every individual’s personal existence, including the unbeliever….until faith apprehends it. Remember, it’s just “lyin’ around in a pile.”
Ah, ah, ah…I can practically see the expressions on some of your faces as you’re already conjuring up your refutation of what I’ve just said. You have no idea where I’m going with this, so just hold your horses and keep following along.
Where was I?
Ah, yes, it sounds like Luther disagrees with UOJ, but wait, there’s more.
Luther goes on to tell us how we come to possess this treasure (through faith/believing). He does this even though he began his statement by also recognizing and acknowledging that Christ has accomplished everything, which includes removing sin. What’s this? Everything accomplished? The removal of sin? This sounds similar to arguments made by proponents of UOJ.
So, which is it? Does Luther agree or disagree with UOJ?
Here we have Luther acknowledging that Christ’s work is both fully accomplished (including the removal of sin), yet this treasure still needs to be distributed from the pile it is just lyin’ around in.
Consider this…although Luther seems to recognize that this treasure is acquired and not yet applied for each and every person, he states that this treasure is to be found (so to speak) in a pile. I would suggest, however, that Scripture speaks of a much better “place” to find this treasure rather than in Luther’s “pile.” Let’s take a look.
Turning To God’s Word First things first. What happened at the cross?
~ God made him who had no sinto be sinfor us. 2 Co 5:21a
Here we learn…that 1) Christ was, in-and-of-himself, without sin and 2) he became sin for us.
Therefore, we can say that according to his own life under the law, Jesus was without sin. He was sinless. Yet, we can also legitimately say that at the cross Jesus became sin. He became actually guilty of all sin. In fact, he became every sinner’s sin. Jesus did not go to the cross merely carrying our sin as though he put our sins in a bag and slung them over his shoulder. No! He became sin.
At the cross, Jesus became actually and fully guilty of all sin of all time. It was as though he had become a murderer, a blasphemer, a thief and a liar. Not because he was guilty of sin in-and-of-himself, but because he became so totally and completely intertwined with all of humanity that he became full guilty – fully sinful – in your place and mine. Therefore, God the Father could rightly and justly pour out the full force of his wrath on Jesus in our place. More than this, God could now legitimately justify and forgive each of us because of what had happened to Christ. Christ became sin.
Now, if we have that squared away in our thinking, let’s see what happened next. Note that these first two verses are agreed upon by many theologians (Lutheran or otherwise) as referring to Christ (“me” = Christ).
~ He who vindicatesmeis near. Isaiah 50:8a
~ Without controversy, the mystery of godliness is great: God was revealed in the flesh, justified [vindicated] in the spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, and received up in glory. 1 Tim 3:16 (WEB) Bracketed note is mine.
A number of Lutheran scholars have concluded (and I agree) that the gist of these verses is that after Christ died guilty of our sin, he, himself, needed to be justified (vindicated) on our behalf. Christ, himself, needed to be declared “right with God,” having paid the full penalty for sin.
Where Is Justification Found? This being the case, the question becomes, “Where is our justification to be found?”
Sadly, proponents of UOJ would emphatically state (numerous people have been disfellowshipped for disagreeing) that this justification has been made a reality (applied though, not fully credited) for all people, including the unbeliever. From a UOJ perspective, it is assumed that Christ’s own justification (vindication) automatically equates to the justification (vindication) of all people.
“In other words, what if God has not applied justification, forgiveness and righteous to each unbeliever’s personal account, but instead has applied AND credited each unbeliever’s personal justification, forgiveness and righteousness to…
I’m going to pause and repeat that in a different way so as to encourage you to truly ponder what I’ve just said. UOJ A-S-S-U-M-E-S (it does not prove) the justification of Christ automatically equates to the justification of all. That is an enormous assumption!
Here are, quite possibly two of the most important questions you will ever hear regarding the topic of justification.
Does Christ’s justification = the justification of all, or does it simply mean Christ, himself, has been justified on behalf of all?
Does forgiven sin automatically = forgiven sinners?
In other words, in answer to our previous question (Where is our justification to be found?), proponents of UOJ conclude our justification is found in each and every individual – having been applied to the believer and the unbeliever alike. Though somehow not fully credited apart from faith.
But is this true? Or, is it over-reaching as a flawed interpretation of Scripture? Is it being read into the text, rather than drawn from the text?
Is Justification Found In A Pile? What about Luther?
Is justification like a treasure “lying in a pile” as Luther suggests? Or, does Scripture offer us a better/fuller solution?
Soooo…does this treasure (our justification) lie in a pile? Hmmm. What if it is to be found stored up (so to speak) not in a place, but in a person? And, what if it were not only our justification, but also our forgiveness, our redemption, our acquittal, our righteousness, our life, our salvation and on and on…? What if all are to be found, not in a pile, but in Christ ? Now, there’s a radical thought. 😮
Further, what if one could argue that justification, forgiveness and righteousness have not only been acquired but fully applied and credited?
Oh, but let’s be careful….
I am not suggesting that these have been applied and credited to each and every individual, rather that they have been applied and credited to one account and one account only…until, through faith, each is distributed to each individual believer’s account.
Is Justification Found In A Person?
Think of it this way (here it comes…this is my favorite part 😁), what if God has not applied justification, forgiveness and righteous to each unbeliever’s personal account, but instead has applied AND credited each unbeliever’s personal justification, forgiveness and righteousness to Christ’s account?
Stop…let that sink in.
What if this were essentially what so many proponents of JBFA have been trying to suggest for years, but without fully gasping all of the details in their own theology? What if we were to give these details a name and call them “Justification In Christ” (JIC)? And, what if this justification were both applied AND credited to each individual’s account exclusively by or through faith A-L-O-N-E?
What if the truth of Scripture actually brings both sides of the debate together? What if, in a very real sense, JBFA and UOJ are both true?
Don’t Take My Word For It Is this a viable possibility? Maybe you don’t believe me? Good! You shouldn’t take my word for it. How about looking to God’s word instead?
Please pay careful attention! The following is what God has to say about justification, forgiveness, righteousness, etc…like it or not…believe it or not. This is what we might call God’s objective truth on the matter…will you subjectively believe it?
Where is our justification and redemption to be found? God’s, answer…in Christ.
~ For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in ChristJesus.Ro 3:23-24 (NKJV)
Where is our reconciliation to be found? Again…in Christ.
~ All this is from God, who reconciled usto himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the worldto himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. 2 Co 5:18-19
Where is our forgiveness? In Christ.
~ Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in ChristGod forgaveyou. Eph 4:32
Where is our salvation? In Christ.
~ Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvationthat is in ChristJesus, with eternal glory. 2 Tim 2:10
Where is our righteousness? In Christ.
~ We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. Col 1:28
~ God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him[in Christ] we might becomethe righteousness of God.2 Co 5:21
→ How do we come to be in Christ ? Well, you must decide for yourself in light of Scripture, but I would argue it comes by way of the means of grace through faith. (See next verse, as well as, “How do we come to be in Christ?” below.)
~ For all of you who were baptized into Christhave clothed yourselves with Christ. Gal 3:27-28
Where is our new life/eternal life? In Christ.
~ In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to Godin ChristJesus. Ro 6:11
~ Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 2 Co 5:17
~ Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life that isin ChristJesus. 2 Tim 1:1
Where are our spiritual wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, redemption, forgiveness and grace to be found? You guessed it…in Christ.
~ And because of him you are in ChristJesus, who became to uswisdom from God, righteousnessand sanctificationand redemption.1 Co 1:30
~ To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in ChristJesus. 1 Co 1:2
~ In himwe have redemptionthrough his blood, the forgivenessof sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace. Eph 1:7
In fact, where are all of the incomparable riches of God’s grace to be found? In Christ, of course.
~ You then, my son, be strong in the gracethat is in ChristJesus. 2 Tim 2:1
~ I always thank God for you because of his gracegiven you in ChristJesus. 1 Co 1:4
~ In order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in ChristJesus. Eph 2:7
What is the real object of our faith? Our own faith? Our justification? Our forgiveness? UOJ? No. Let me ask it another way. Where are all of the promises of God found and fulfilled? In Christ.
~ For no matter how many promisesGod has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. 2 Co 1:20
In Christ, we are seated in the heavenly realms. Pause and allow that one to sink in. This, quite possibly, best demonstrates the point I am attempting to make with all of this.Every spiritual blessing anyone could ever hope to have or imagine is so wrapped up in, hidden in, and encapsulated in Christ, that we (as believers) are even in heaven right this very minute…in Christ (go wrap your head around that one).If this is true, how much more is our forgiveness, righteousness, acquittal, justification, etc. all wrapped up in, hidden in, and encapsulated in Christ?
~ And God raised usup with Christand seated us with himin the heavenly realms in ChristJesus. Eph 2:6
Though it be a mystery, the mystery is solved in Christ.
~ And he made known to us the mystery of his willaccording to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ. Eph 1:9
In Christ, every spiritual blessing is found and accomplished.
~ Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. Eph 1:3
~ According to his eternal purpose which he accomplishedin ChristJesus our Lord. Eph 3:11
How do we come to be in Christ?
~ And you also were included in Christwhen you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Eph 1:13
And, in Christ, we find our peace.
~ And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your mindsin ChristJesus. Phil 4:7
~ Peace to allof you who are in Christ. 1 Peter 5:14
Whew! That was a lot. Wasn’t it so cool, though? Isn’t it awesome when we just allow God to do all of the talking on the subject of justification (or anything else)? Did I mention, that this is my favorite part of this site?
But wait…there’s still more.
Outside of Christ What about those who are not in Christ? Do they stand acquitted, forgiven, righteous and justified?
~ The Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteousfor the day of judgment. 2 Pt 2:9
~ Do you not know that the unrighteouswill not inherit the kingdom of God? 1 Co 6:9 (NKJV)
~ Whoever does not believe stands condemnedalreadybecause he has not believedin the name of God’s one and only Son. Jn 3:18
~ Whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remainson him. Jn 3:36
~ When he [the Spirit] comes, he will convictthe world of guiltin regard to sinand righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me. Jn 16:8-9
~ If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven. Jn 20:23
Though proponents of UOJ think they have a valid response to these last 6 passages, there are serious flaws in the proposed solution (see Q & A, Category 1, Questions 4 & 5).
Conclusion Nowhere in Scripture does God inform us that he has justified the whole world (as you’ll see when we get to the UOJ Proof Passages section of the site) other than with a justification that remains exclusively in Christ until distributed by faith. In other words, what God does say is that he has justified Christ and as a result, he justifies those who are in Christ.
~ He who vindicatesme [Christ] is near. Isaiah 50:8a
~ Without controversy, the mystery of godliness is great: God was revealed in the flesh, justified in the spirit…. 1 Tim 3:16 (WEB)
~ [All] being justified freely by his grace through the redemption which [is] in Christ Jesus; whom God has set forth a mercy-seat, through faith in his blood. Romans 3:24-25a (Darby)
~ Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.Romans 8:1
~ And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit. Ephesians 1:13
~ For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified. Romans 10:10
Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t help but to conclude that the testimony of Scripture is clear. As Christians, every blessing we have, everything we hope for, indeed, everything we are, is all wrapped up and encapsulated (I love that word in this context) only in Christ.
It looks something like this:
Table 3
In keeping with JIC, one could legitimately argue that it would be correct to tell the unbeliever that God has fully and freely forgiven him in Christ.
On the other hand, one could also legitimately argue that it would be just as valid to tell the unbeliever, God will forgive him if/when he is granted the gift of faith in Christ.
For the record (just in case you were keeping a record), I didn’t come up with this stuff on my own. I did not come up with this just to create some theoretically viable way of bringing opponents from both sides together. (In fact, truth be told, I am loath to think of this as a possible form – though a very different form – of UOJ even though it would also serve as a form of JBFA. For years, I resisted presenting this truth in this way, because I became so opposed to UOJ.) Having said that, the reality is this…this is what the text of Scripture teaches. Go read the passages for yourself in context and see if they don’t still hold the same meaning compared to that which I have suggested.
Our justification, forgiveness and righteousness are found in Christ…A-L-O-N-E!
I don’t see any way around it. (Though I’m sure many will cling to their previously held beliefs, over clinging to Scripture.)
Moreover, our good, gracious and just God has not granted these things to those who are not in Christ. Instead unbelievers remain separated, outside of this treasure which God has undeservedly bestowed upon those whom he has brought to himself…brought to himself, in Christ. The treasure is there for all. It is ready and waiting. It is a real (realized, actualized, not potential – more on this later) treasure. It is a treasure that lies, not in a pile, but in a person. It is distributed (credited) to individuals, freely by his grace through faith and through faith alone.
But again, maybe that’s just me. As a Christian, you’ll have to decide for yourself how man comes to be forgiven, justified, acquitted, made righteous and the like. But as for me and my household, we’re going to cling to Christ as the object of our faith…not to faith itself…not to the false misleading doctrine of UOJ, not even to JBFA…not to anything else, but to Christ and to Christ alone.
Here we stand. We can do no other.
What about you?
– Think About It –
Q & A
Category Listings
This section addresses objections surrounding UOJ and is divided into tabs according to 3 categories below:
Category 3 (UOJ Proof Passages) could have easily fallen under either of the first two categories. For this reason and due to the fact that each proof passage contains a fairly detailed explanation, UOJ Proof Passages became its own category.
Instructions Each individual objection is presented as a question, a statement (in response to a question), or a proof passage…all in keeping with the each of the 3 categories, in a closed accordion style entry (to save space). Once opened, each listed entry contains the answer or analysis for each objection. To see each answer/analysis, simply click the large orange “+” symbol next to each question/statement. When finished with each answer/response, you can either close the response (click on the big orange “-” symbol) and open the next one or simply click on the next “+” symbol and the previous response will close automatically.
While it may be helpful to read each category tab, with each of its listed objections, all the way through one-at-a-time, you may also find it useful to skip around a bit.
Category Tabs
1) Direct Objections to UOJ2) Analyzing the Defense of UOJ3) UOJ Proof Passages
What is UOC? Universal Objective Condemnation (or UOC, as I have come to call it), by itself, disproves UOJ.
According to UOC, the whole world, according to their normal, natural sinful condition (apart from saving faith), stands separated from God and under his condemnation and wrath. This is universally and objectively true for all people whether they believe this or not.
UOJ & UOC Cannot Both Be True In short, if UOC is true, then UOJ cannot be true, and if UOJ is true then UOC cannot be true.
This is the reality of the situation, no matter how much the proponent of UOJ tries to confuse the issue by attempting to separate the two into a law/gospel distinction – declaring that since condemnation is a matter of law and forgiveness is a matter of the gospel, both can be true of the same person, namely, each unbeliever. (See “Does the unpardonable sin disprove UOJ?” and “Does the gospel withheld disprove UOJ?” for a demonstration that this supposed law/gospel distinction is nonsensical according to Scripture.)
For, the unbeliever cannot rightly be declared, by God, to be condemned, unrighteous and lacking in the removal of (and the forgiveness of) sins as well as being declared justified, righteous and forgiven at the same time.
Elsewhere (in the tabs above), I’ve taken a somewhat detailed look at those “proof” passages which supposedly teach UOJ. At best, they are very questionable – normally due to having been yanked out of proper context (though not always). But what about UOC? Is the Bible also so sketchy on the subject of the universal condemnation of sinful man?
What God Says About UOC Let’s take a look.
~ 2 Pt 2:9 – The Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment.
~ 1 Co 6:9 (NKJV) – Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
~ 1 Pt 3:18 – For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous [unjust in NKJV], to bring you to God.
~ Jn 3:18 – Whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
~ Jn 3:36 – Whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.
~ Jn 16:8-9 – When he [the Spirit] comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me.
~ Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.
UOC Verses Explained
While we could include a number of additional passages to the list above, those listed are more than sufficient to prove the point. The unrighteous (the unjust) stand condemned already with God’s wrath remaining on them, while they are also convicted (by the Holy Spirit) of their guilt for their unbelief.
Does this sound like objective justification (UOJ) or universal condemnation (UOC)? The Reality is that each of these passages speaks volumes against UOJ.
UOJ expressly teaches that all people, including the unbeliever, have been declared to be both just and righteous. Yet, the first 3 passages above specifically declare the unbeliever to be unjust or unrighteous.
Next, Jn 3:18 speaks specifically of the unbeliever standing condemned already. This does not say, he will be condemned (after death or on the last day), but that he has already been declared to be condemned (as he stands in his condemnation) as a direct result of his unbelief. The fact that he stands condemned is a statement of his being declared condemned. UOJ would have us believe he has been formally and legallydeclared both condemned and forgiven at the same time.
Moving on, Jn 3:36 tells us that God’s wrath remains on the unbeliever. Again, this does not say that in the end, he will receive God’s wrath, but that God’s wrath is already there, remaining on him. To be clear, this is not man’s guilt and condemnation (judgement) remaining on him, this is God’s wrath (anger, fury) which remains on him. Why would God’s wrath, anger and fury remain on him if God, himself, has declared him to be forgiven in his own sight?
Further, Jn 16:8-9 tells us that the Holy Spirit is at work in the world, among the unbelievers convicting them of their guilt resulting from their unbelief. Yet, UOJ expressly teaches that even the unbeliever’s guilt for sin has been removed (he has been formally declared “not guilty”), he is guilt free. (Note that when I refer to “guilt” here, I am not referring specifically to guilty feelings, I am referring to actual legal guilt vs. innocence.)
Finally, Acts 3:19 gives us the flip-side of the equation. Not only are unbelievers still guilty and condemned before God, but this verse expressly tells us that they still need to have their sins removed as well…they are still lacking in forgiveness as a result of the removal of sin.
In other words, though proponents of UOJ proclaim that there is a supposed law/gospel distinction to be made regarding universal condemnation (law) and supposed universal justification (gospel), this verse negates that possibility (see also Mt 12:31-32 and theunforgivable sin as well as “Does the gospel withheld disprove UOJ?“).
UOC, by itself, disproves UOJ.
Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture when we allow Scripture to interpret itself, UOJ or JIC?
Truth or Fine Sounding Argumentation? One way in which proponents of UOJ attempt to overcome the objections associated with the fact that Scripture clearly states that unbelievers stand condemned under God’s wrath is by making the claim that there is a law/gospel distinction being made between God’s condemnation and God’s forgiveness as explained by UOJ.
According to this line of thinking, it is simply a matter of the law when we understand that unbelievers stand condemned by God. By contrast, it is a matter of the gospel (so it is taught) to understand that these same unbelievers have God’s forgiveness applied to their lives. The two teachings, though seemingly contradictory (according to the proponent of UOJ) can still coexist nicely, once we understand this law/gospel distinction.
~ Col 2:4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.
While this may be a fine-sounding argument, I would suggest that it is a hollow and deceptive philosophy which has been imposed upon the text of Scripture rather than pulled from the text.
~ Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Why do I think this is just a fine sounding argument? What about those times when Scripture fails to speak in terms of the unbeliever’s condemnation under the law, but instead, speaks of the gospel being withheld?
More of The Same? I’ve touched on the concept of “the gospel withheld” in a couple of other Q & A’s, but I believe this deserves its own Q & A, so we can dig into it in more detail.
Quite simply, the gospel withheld, by itself, disproves UOJ.
To be clear, those passages which speak of wrath and condemnation before a holy God, can indeed, rightly be considered law passages, while those passages which speak of justification, forgiveness and righteousness can also rightly be considered gospel passages.
If what I have just said is true, then what’s the problem?
Here it is. The law and the gospel do not…cannot…apply equally to the same person at the same time.
Under Law or Grace? When we look at the whole of Scripture and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we come to realize that the believer is no longer under the law, but under grace. The law no longer applies to him in the same way that it did when he was an unbeliever.
~ Ro 6:14 [Speaking to those who have been brought from death to life – i.e. believers] For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
The flip side is also true – the unbeliever is not under grace (in a legal sense), rather he is exclusively under the law. Yes, God bestows some measure of grace on all of creation, but we are not speaking of that, here. We are speaking of God’s grace in a forensic (legal) sense in regards to God’s eternal judgement, specifically in regard to justification, forgiveness and righteousness. In this sense, the unbeliever is not under God’s grace, he is exclusively under the law.
~ Ro 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
The long and the short of it is that those passages which speak of the unbeliever’s condemnation and wrath are specifically statements of condemnation and wrath, under the law.
Moreover, those passages which speak of the believer as having received God’s justification, forgiveness and righteousness are specifically statements of gospel, to those under God’s grace.
Distinction or Blending? To say that the unbeliever is both condemned and forgiven at the same time is not a distinction between law and gospel, but a blendingof law and gospel. It is equivalent to saying that the unbeliever is both under the law and under grace at the same time.
If we are going to use a law/gospel argument, let’s use the law and the gospel correctly (and fully) without blending the two together. Any good Lutheran knows that we should always be careful to use the law and the gospel correctly, including the fact that we should never mix the two together.
But wait…there’s more! Scripture not only speaks of the unbeliever as standing under God’s wrath and condemnation, but it also speaks specifically of the gospel being withheld from him. In other words, Scripture not only speaks of the law condemning the unbeliever, but at the other end of the spectrum (or on the other side of the coin, if you will) of his NOT being forgiving by the gospel.
I’m no rocket scientist, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the gospel cannot rightly be said to be fully applied (though not credited) and to be fully withheld at the same time.
Again, to be clear, I am not speaking of wrath and condemnation passages, here. I am speaking of gospel withheld passages. There is an important distinction to be made between the two.
Proofs of Gospel Withheld Let’s take a look at a few passages which specifically speak of the gospel being withheld.
We’ll begin in the Old Testament. An argument could be made that these OT passages do not apply to those in the NT era. I would encourage you to look them up for yourself in their broader context to see if any of these are exclusively for the people of the OT or whether some (or all) are intended to be understood in an ongoing sense.
Moreover, UOJ teaches that God’s forgiveness is essentially retroactive, meaning it not only applies from the cross (or empty tomb, as the case may be) forward, but goes all the way back to creation. So, if you want to argue that these OT passages do not apply, you’ll have to factor this retroactive application into your thinking as you try to wrap your head around the problems with UOJ.
OT Passages:
~ Deut 29:19-20 When such a person hears the words of this oath, he invokes a blessing on himself and therefore thinks, “I will be safe, even though I persist in going my own way.” This will bring disaster on the watered land as well as the dry. The LORD will never be willing to forgive him; his wrath and zeal will burnagainst that man. All the curses written in this book will fall upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven.
This chapter ends with these words from verse 29 (see, I’ve done some of the context homework for you…you’re welcome 😜):
~“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”
So, what do you think? Could this entire OT passage (verses 19-29) include those of us in the NT era?
Next…
~ Ex 23:20-21 “See, I am sending an angel [Many would say this angel (messenger) is Christ] ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.
~ Num 14:18 The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty…
Notice this last verse (Num 14:18) is clearly speaking of God’s slowness to anger and of his abounding and steadfast love as expressed in forgiveness. Yet, even though it speaks of the wonders of God’s love and forgiveness, his abounding love is not bound-less love. His love has boundaries which coincide with his justice and holiness. God will not clear (gospel) the guilty (law).
Did you catch the significance of this verse. If any verse in all of Scripture has potential for being a perfect UOJ proof, the first part of this verse would lead us to believe that this is it!
UOJ assumes God’s love, as expressed through forgiveness, is boundless. Yet, though this verse speaks of God’s abounding love, expressed through forgiveness, it also does that which the rest of Scripture consistently does, it refuses to result in UOJ. The second portion of the verse goes out of its way to explain the whole truth of the matter. Namely, that God’s love, expressed through forgiveness, though abounding is not boundless.
For God’s wrath and judgement remain for the guilty. The guilty have no part in the forgiveness of the first part of the verse. The guilty are not cleared of their guilt as the second part of the verse states. Finally, the guilty are not the guilt free, but remain theguilty as the second part also states.
In short, the gospel is withheld from them.
Let’s move on the the New Testament.
NT Passages:
~ Mt 6:14-15 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
~ Jn 20:23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
~ Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.
~ Mt 12:32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Conclusion As you can hopefully see from the above passages, the unbeliever’s condemnation before God is more than a matter of a law/gospel distinction. Scripture not only informs us that the unbeliever is condemned under the law, but, in keeping with the testimony of Scripture, he is not forgiven either.
While these two sides of the same truth ought to be self evident, UOJ attempts to confuse the issue by claiming a supposed law/gospel distinction which is ultimately a blending of law and gospel (rather than a distinction between the two) as explained above.
What it comes down to is this: The word of God very clear states that those who do not find themselves among the made-new children of God remain unforgiven, while the words of men claim (contrary to God) that these same unbelievers are forgiven. Bearing in mind that I have attempted to demonstrate (under the 3rd category tab, “UOJ Proof Passages”) UOJ has never legitimately (in context) been proved from Scripture, in the first place.
Either you believe our God of order, has both forgiven and not forgiven the unbeliever at the same time, or you (at the very least) are willing to question the idea…if not forsake it altogether.
If enough people question it, maybe Lutheran theologians will eventually feel compelled to legitimately discuss and debate…including actually listening to and considering an alternative (more biblical) view.
As for me, I have to conclude that God said what he meant and meant what he said…”not forgiven” means not forgiven, rather than meaning not forgiven and also forgiven. Call me crazy.
The gospel withheld, by itself, disproves UOJ.
Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments), UOJ or JIC?
You may be wondering why I’ve included questions about both the unforgivable sin and the gospel withheld, when both seem so similar.
Well, there is certainly overlap between these two questions as well as the question regarding the Ministry of the Keys. Scripture speaks against UOJ in a number of similar, yet distinct, ways. Essentially, the unforgivable sin is, indeed, an example of the gospel withheld, but it is an extreme example where Jesus emphatically declares that those who commit this sin, will not only be unforgiven in the age to come, but are already unforgiven in this age as well.
Moreover, though proponents of UOJ have sometimes heard (and responded to) the objection that the unforgivable sin disproves UOJ by claiming a law/gospel distinction, to the best of my knowledge, no one has made the argument that the unforgivable sin specifically stands as an example of the gospel withheld (lack of gospel), not just an example of the sinner’s condemnation (law).
In other words, the unforgivable sin not only speaks of the unbeliever’s condemnation, but more specifically of his lack of forgiveness. He cannot be forgiven and expressly unforgiven at the same time. The unforgivable sin expressly speaks of the sinner as being without forgiveness (without the gospel) rather than his being condemned (under the law).
Therefore, 1) due to the fact that the unforgivable sin is a somewhat common objection to UOJ (and a strong objection at that) as well as 2) the fact that the gospel withheld is a seemingly new slant on the unforgivable sin (in addition to other Bible passages which speak of the unbeliever’s lack of forgiveness – rather than his condemnation), I felt both subjects deserved their own Q & A.
So, what is the difference between the unforgivable sin and the gospel withheld? Well, the gospel withheld does not necessarily refer to the unforgivable sin, but the unforgivable sin is one example of the gospel withheld.
Now, onto our next similar/related subject, the “Ministry of the Keys.”
Scripture Interprets Scripture One thing I have gratefully learned from my Lutheran heritage is that we must always allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.
In other words, as it applies to UOJ, we cannot forsake one portion of Scripture for the sake of upholding a flawed belief loosely based upon (or read into) other portions of Scripture.
Is the biblical evidence overwhelmingly against the validity of UOJ?
Well, you will have to decide for yourself, hopefully you’ll do so by being honest with all of the text of Scripture, in its proper context. Personally, I would suggest that individually, each of the previous five arguments, 1) the unforgivable sin, 2) universal condemnation, 3) the gospel withheld, 4) the keys, and 5) spiritual identity, each by itself, disproves UOJ. But when combined together, the biblical witness is overwhelmingly against the validity of UOJ, in my view.
Again, you will have to decide for yourself with or without the help of the Holy Spirit as your guide. The choice is yours.
What say you? Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture, UOJ or JIC?
Now, let’s briefly consider some additional problems with UOJ.
At what point do we determine we have legitimately rung-out every last drop of biblical truth from any given doctrine before we find we have gone just a little too far in defining the details?
And, if someone does over-step…just a little…what does it take for someone else (with some level of authority) to come along and recognize this over-stepping for what it is and to make an authoritative change?
Further, what if that slight over-stepping becomes formally documented “truth,” an official church doctrine, part of the seminary curriculum, and the like?
What if, over time, little-by-little, one more nugget of “truth” or one more “proof” passage gets added to the original slight over-stepping?
What if these new “truths” also get added to formal documents, official church doctrine, seminary curriculum, and the like?
What would it take for these supposed truths to be corrected rather than vehemently held onto, no matter what?
Pulling From or Reading Into? Exegesis vs eisegesis.
Those are the fancy theological terms which simply refer to pulling meaning from the text vs. reading meaning into the text.
Exegesis is to pull meaning from the text of Scripture – allowing Scripture to speak to you.
Eisegesis, on the other hand, is to read meaning into the text of Scripture – imposing meaning upon the text. Put another way, eisegesis is seeing meaning in the text, which just isn’t there.
It can certainly be an easy thing to do, especially in this digital age, when we can so easily “search” for a particular word, phrase or topic and dozens of results pop up…all, out of context.
Context Read out of context, a number of “proof” passages for UOJ, for example, could easily seem to suggest (on the surface) UOJ could actually be true.
Ahh, but context…context is always king.
Or…should be.
In context, any given passage can take on an entirely different meaning than that which may appear to be the case, when taken out of context. Only in context, can we legitimately expect to find and correctly comprehend the original (the true) meaning of the passage in question.
Any False Doctrine… The topic of how man comes to be justified before a holy God is arguably the central, most important doctrine in all of Scripture.
When errors arise regarding any doctrine of Scripture, by-and-large, we do well to address them one-by-one. We do well to “put down” error with the light of God’s truth. We do well to quickly extinguish the flaming arrows of the evil one before his lies have the opportunity to take root and grow.
“Any false doctrine, carried to its logical conclusion, ends in spiritual death.”
If you have been around conservative Lutheran circles for any length of time, you may have heard this statement before.
I happen to agree with this statement.
If we need to take every precaution to squash any false teaching, in an attempt to avoid spiritual death (or preserve spiritual life, as the case may be) how much more important is it to pay particularly close attention to those teachings which have to do with justification.
Too Much of a Good Thing? I don’t know exactly how the teaching of UOJ came to be, but if I had to guess, I would think it had something to do with addressing some sort of real or perceived doctrinal error. Or, maybe it was simply an attempt to find an answer to some previously unanswered question.
Either way, is it possible that somewhere along the way someone (or more than one someone) stepped into error, while trying to define things too precisely?
Possible…is it just possible?
If so, what would it take to correct it?
At what point do we determine we have legitimately rung-out every last drop of biblical truth from any given doctrine before we find we have gone just a little too far in defining the details?
Have proponents of UOJ attempted to define things a little too precisely?
How will you handle the word of God?
Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture, UOJ or JIC or something else?
Attempts at Defending UOJ How does the proponent of UOJ go about defending UOJ when legitimate questions or objections are raised? Is the UOJ defense valid? Is the defense biblical? Is it based upon sound logic and reasoning, in light of Scripture?
Here, in Category 2 (Analyzing the Defense of UOJ), I have attempted to put forth a number of common defenses given by proponents of UOJ when a legitimated question or an objection is raised, followed by my own analysis of those defenses.
In Category 1, everything was listed in a strictly Q & A format. Here, each listing is in a question/objection, defense, then analysis format (sometimes with multiple defenses and analyses following the same question/objection).
Upon opening each listing you will find 1) the original question/objection restated, 2) additional details about the defense from proponents of UOJ and 3) my analysis of that defense. I encourage you to determine for yourself whether or not each defense of UOJ is a valid one, in light of Scripture and plain reasoning.
Category 3 – UOJ Proof Passages
Reasonable Doubt Below are a number of commonly used “proof” passages used to support UOJ. With each of these passages of Scripture, much could be said in an effort to disprove or at least raise a reasonable doubt regarding the validity of UOJ. Instead of getting into great detail with each passage, however, I will simply offer here a very brief (as brief as possible, while still giving sufficient detail) analysis regarding the use of each passage as a proof for UOJ.
The Burden of Proof Bear in mind (and this is important), the burden of proof falls on the proponent of UOJ to prove his case from Scripture, not on the one questioning the use of a passage, to disprove it’s use. This is particularly true when the proponent of UOJ is so adamant in his theology, to the point of disfellowshipping those who would question the validity of UOJ, seemingly without serious questioning, analysis, discussion or debate.
UOJ or JIC or…? On this site, I have attempted to share (for a PDF download of the full text of this site that you too can share…or keep for yourself, click here) the teaching of UOJ, along with various problems associated with it .
Additionally, I have attempted to offer a more biblical view of justification (which I have come to call Justification in Christ or JIC – not a new teaching, just a new identifier for the original biblical teaching…in my view) which is consistent with all of Scripture, including those biblical teachings which I have suggested serve to disprove UOJ.
Further, the foundation behind JIC was borrowed from Lutheran theologians who, themselves, were proponents of UOJ. What is that foundation? It is that Christ, himself, had to be vindicated/justified after having become sin for us.
Am I 100% convinced that JIC is the correct way to understand justification? No. But, I do lean heavily in that direction (about 99.9% convinced…I always leave some wiggle room to be corrected on any of my beliefs, but I also know what I believe and why I believe it…and, it’s not just “because my pastor said so.”) based on the biblical witness.
Am I 100% convinced that UOJ is NOT the correct way to understand justification? At this point in time, again I would say 99.9% convinced. And again, I am always willing to consider legitimate arguments from Scripture to the contrary (arguments FROM SCRIPTURE…you caught that, right?) At this point, I have read, researched and prayerfully considered much on the subject of UOJ and have been left thoroughly under-impressed with any supposed biblical arguments.
And, honestly, I don’t really care what other pastors, professors or Lutheran Fathers have to say on the issue unless it is directly taken from God’s word.
My Hope… I hope that this site serves to spark critical thinking on the subject of justification.
I further hope that this site prompts further discussion among Lutherans (theologians and non-theologians), truly willing to openly listen and discuss.
One observation I have made regarding the proponents of UOJ is that most seem over-confident (I’ll refrain from saying arrogant – oh, I guess I just did 😲) in their stance on UOJ. It is assumed that UOJ is the be-all, end-all position on justification. There often seems to be no legitimate consideration given to the possibility that UOJ could be wrong…only that the poor, yet-to-be-convinced, persistent errorist (the one who rejects UOJ) must be wrong.
I would suggest that this is not because the evidence from Scripture compels them to hold so tightly to UOJ (as we have seen some real problems with supposed “proof” passages for UOJ). Rather, I would suggest that these proponents of UOJ are more inclined to hold tightly to UOJ due to pride, tradition, fear of disagreeing with UOJ (and being disfellowshipped), or the like, more than based on the supposed evidence itself (though maybe they have been thoroughly deceived by the enemy).
In this sense, they are akin to the secular scientist who rules out the possibility of a creator before ever looking at the evidence in creation. Just as this is not good science (leading the evidence where you want it to go, rather than following the evidence wherever it leads), so every Christian ought to be readily willing to admit he could be wrong in one way or another and ought to humbly consider another possibility while thoroughly examining all of the biblical witness on the subject.
Should we allow ourselves to be blown back and forth by every wind of teaching? Of course not! But we ought not (dare not) stubbornly refuse to consider real truth, in light of the full testimony of Scripture, either.
Sadly, in regard to UOJ, proponents seem to have closed their eyes and ears to any possibility of being corrected. Zech 7:11 comes to mind:
~ Zech 7:11 But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder; they closed their ears so they could not hear. (CSB)
But, I am fairly confident that not all “proponents” emphatically agree with UOJ (or each other). I hope this site serves to embolden those who quietly disagree with UOJ to come out from hiding and to take a stand for truth…or at least take a stand for legitimate questioning and debate.
Finally, I hope this site serves to glorify God and to bring light to his truth, found in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
If I Have Failed… If I have, at times spoken too harshly, I apologize. It was not my intention. Though it was my intention to put forth the truth and to put down error plainly and boldly (and hopefully with a bit of levity). I currently stand vehemently opposed to UOJ, but I have done my very best to present information here as honestly and objectively as possible. I have made every effort to avoid name-calling or other derogatory language and the like, while at the same time openly “telling it like it is.” I hope I have successfully shared the truth (as I understand it) in true Christian love and humility. I again, apologize if I have failed at some point.
Blessings God’s blessings to you on your journey of discovery regarding God’s justifying work through Christ. May he lead you to a knowledge of the truth.
~ If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. James 1:5 (BSB)
X
Due to certain features used, this site is best viewed on computer or tablet (horizontally). Phone? Not so much...just sayin'.
When we put all three of these terms together, what we end up with is this: All people for all time have been legally declared, “not guilty,” not because each one is without sin (or because their sin does not matter), but because Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was fully sufficient and therefore no one during his lifetime (this side of eternity) is legally held accountable for his wrongdoings in the eyes of God (more on this in a moment).
Many Lutherans (though certainly not all) believe in UOJ (pretty obvious, right?). Many others, however, reject UOJ in favor of (what has become known as) Justification By Faith Alone (JBFA – because, after all, Lutheranism needs more initials and/or acronyms…ya know, we’ve got ELCA, LCMS, WELS, ELS, UOJ, etc. Why not JBFA too? And, just for fun, I’ll add another to the mix in just a bit.) 😉
Received (Credited)
