Question/Objection to UOJ:
Aren’t all people justified/forgiven through faith alone?
Defense for UOJ (Part 3 of 5):
If faith completes justification, then the object of a person’s faith becomes his own faith.
The argument goes something like this: if UOJ is not true, each “believer” must always question whether or not he is truly forgiven. Why? Because his forgiveness was not already true (real, genuine, realized) before his faith, therefore, he must question whether or not his faith actually “produced” the forgiveness he sought, or if his faith is a false faith? In other words, forgiveness becomes potential rather than actual.
As a result, this “believer” must always look to his own faith as the object of his faith (the thing in which he is putting his trust) in order to have the assurance of forgiveness he is looking for…or, so the argument goes.
Analysis:
First, let’s be clear. Sin and Satan, can lead any believer (possibly every believer) to doubt God; to doubt God’s promises; to doubt God’s word as a whole; and/or to doubt his own forgiveness at one time or another.
This reality has nothing to do with whether or not UOJ is true!
In fact, for the proponent of UOJ, this argument accomplishes nothing more than to push doubt back a step. How so? Even if forgiveness has been applied to every individual person (including the unbeliever), most people, will still die separated from God and held accountable for their sin as a result of their unbelief.
This being the case, even the proponent of UOJ, has to wonder if he is one of those who is forgiven and saved or is he forgiven and still condemned? Is he a true believer, or does he have a false faith? Has forgiveness actually been credited to his account or does it merely apply to (it has been realized for) him without being credited to him? All of this would still result in a supposed objectively true forgiveness which still does him no good, in regard to his doubts/certainty of forgiveness.
Sin and Satan will always find a way to create doubt.
To overcome doubt, the proponent of UOJ, will be just as likely to find himself trusting in his own faith (or trusting in UOJ, itself), as will the one who rejects UOJ – all in an effort to find assurance of forgiveness.
This being the case, however, many doubting Christians (proponents of UOJ or not) still do not find themselves trusting in their own faith or in UOJ, but instead turning to the promises of God, found in Christ.
You see, though sin and Satan are hard at work leading the Christian to doubt, sin and Satan are not the only forces at work…the Holy Spirit coupled with the believer’s new spirit within him are also at work, leading him to trust in God through Christ.
So, while it may certainly be true that some could find themselves looking to their own faith (or UOJ) as the object of their faith, some will not. There is more than one possible result.
Therefore, this defense from proponents of UOJ is based upon flawed reasoning. Moreover, as already pointed out, UOJ does nothing to solve the problem of doubt anyway. It just moves it back a step.
By contrast, JIC puts the Christian’s faith squarely in Christ from the get-go. Further, JIC overcomes any notion that forgiveness is potential rather than actual.
If someone believes JIC, could sin and Satan still lead him to doubt? Absolutely! Let’s be real. This is what sin and Satan do.
But, unlike UOJ, I would suggest that JIC leads a person toward a greater likelihood of looking to Christ himself, as the object of his faith, when he finds himself in the midst of wrestling with his doubts.
I would further suggest that this is more likely, 1) due to having a firmer foundation planted directly in Christ in the first place, over against UOJ and, 2) due to the Holy Spirit (combined with the believer’s new spirit) having this same firmer foundation to work with in bringing assurance to him, when he doubts.
By contrast, I would also suggest that UOJ has a greater likelihood of pointing the doubter, either to his faith, or to the doctrine of UOJ itself vs pointing him to Christ specifically.
Will all who believe in UOJ fall back on their own faith or on the justification proposed by UOJ when they doubt? Certainly not! But, I would suspect, there would be a greater likelihood of it, over those who trust directly in Christ in the first place as JIC teaches. This is part of the reason, I lean heavily in the direction of JIC as being the more biblically accurate understanding of justification – its greater focus on Christ in all things.
Proponents of UOJ, will likely take exception to the idea that JIC focuses on Christ more than UOJ does. Yet, I have read numerous times from proponents of UOJ, that (and, I am paraphrasing) UOJ solves this problem of doubt, because the doubter can trust in their objectively true forgiveness/justification (for an example of this see the link below, One Example of UOJ as Object of Faith) rather than the doubter being pointed directly to Christ.
Reread that last sentence…I’ll leave it for you to decide whether or not this is ultimately an admission that UOJ promotes forgiveness/justification as the object of faith, rather than Christ. To me, the answer is clear.
Which is more consistent with the testimony of Scripture, UOJ or JIC?
Consider This, From One Proponent of UOJ:
“If forgiveness were dependent on faith in the sense that God does not forgive until we believe, we would always have to be sure that we are believers before we could be sure that we are forgiven. We may not see how dangerous that is, until one of those moments of temptation and doubt comes to us in which we no longer know that we are believers. In such a time we will have no place to go unless we can say, “God has told me that in Christ He has forgiven the sins of the world. (sic) My faith or my unbelief, will neither make God’s Word true or untrue. He does not lie. He justifies the ungodly (Ro 4:5). Even if I am the most ungodly, the most wicked man on earth, I know that He has justified and forgiven me. To that promise I will cling, even if my heart tells me that I am without faith, without love, without hope. I know that God is greater than my heart and knows all things (1 Jn 3:20).” (Universal Justification [Delivered at the convention of the Southeast Wisconsin District of the WELS on June 12, 1984 at Wisconsin Lutheran High School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin], By Siegbert W. Becker) Emboldened and underlined emphasis above are mine. “Sic” refers to the fact that there should be an end quote after “world”.
Mr. Becker mentions the danger of rejecting UOJ. Let’s examine his words more closely to discover the real danger of UOJ.
1. As I’ve already stated JIC, eliminates any notion that forgiveness is dependent on faith in the sense that Mr. Becker suggests. In all fairness, I realize that Mr. Becker is not responding to JIC, he is responding to the supposed default belief that opponents of UOJ must have, namely, that faith completes justification/forgiveness.
2. Next, Mr. Becker states that one would have to be sure he is a believer, before he could be sure he is forgiven. Well, in the way that it is laid out in the above quote, if UOJ were true everyone could theoretically know they are forgiven, even without being a believer. However, what comfort is this to the one who has NOT been (according to UOJ) subjectively justified and still has no relationship with God and, therefore, has no credited forgiveness and no eternal life (i.e. the false convert)? Answer: A false comfort.
3. Sadly, the real danger is not for the true Christian who has times of doubt and goes to heaven anyway because he has been made new in Christ and is a true child of God. No. The real danger is in the unbeliever, who remains separated from God, yet finds full assurance in his state of “forgiven” unbelief and who spends eternity in hell, while supposedly fully forgiven. I come from a Catholic background and most, if not all of my family members (on both my and my wife’s side of the family) either consider themselves Catholic or believe (similarly to Catholics – influenced by Catholicism) that their works will get them to heaven. They have a certain level of comfort (mixed with uncertainty) that they will be forgiven by God when they stand before him. They don’t need extra false assurance they are already forgiven in their works-oriented faith. On two separate occasions, I have had two separate family members tell me they would rather go to hell, than to hear what I have to say about the biblical version (rather than Catholic version) of the gospel. Why? Is it because they are convinced they are going to hell anyway? No! Instead, it is because they believe they are good enough to go to heaven on their own! In my view, false assurance of forgiveness is far more dangerous than doubts from the true believer. Which is not to suggest that doubts are not dangerous or are unimportant.
4. Notice that Mr. Becker, somehow seems to know with something inside of him (maybe his own spirit as well as the Holy Spirit) that full forgiveness (objective forgiveness) is found “in Christ” (applied to Christ’s account, not to all people’s account). Notice he says, “…unless we can say, “God has told me that in Christ He has forgiven the sins of the world.” Could it be that Mr. Becker is really a proponent of JIC at heart, even if he, himself, doesn’t realize it?
5. Notice also, that Mr. Becker states that the promise which a person is to cling to is the promise of justification and forgiveness, meaning objective justification and therefore objective forgiveness (i.e. UOJ). And, there you have it, the object of faith is the doctrine of UOJ, not specifically Christ himself. Sadly, things get worse.
6. Unfortunately, Mr. Becker says, “Even if I am the most ungodly, the most wicked man on earth, I know that He has justified and forgiven me. To that promise I will cling, even if my heart tells me that I am without faith, without love, without hope.” Let’s be really clear, either Mr. Becker is actually referring to himself or to a hypothetical “I” (which could refer to either a believer or an unbeliever). Either way, let’s examine each possibility more closely. If Mr. Becker is referring to an unbeliever, the notion that this unbeliever would “cling to the promise of justification and forgiveness” can only refer to a false assurance based upon a false faith due to his remaining unbelief. Which, as stated above, is not a good thing, as it results in eternal separation from God. Further, if there is some notion of this “clinging” as still being a good thing for the unbeliever, then we find ourselves dancing dangerously close to universalism. On the other hand, if Mr. Becker is referring to a believer (himself or otherwise), we must take notice that he consistently speaks in the present tense. In other words, he is suggesting that this person is a believer as well as being the most ungodly, wicked man on earth at the same time. Yes, it is true that the sinful flesh remains, but the spirit (which is what God is looking at and is concerned primarily about) has been made new, clothed in the righteousness of Christ (see Category Tab 1 – Direct Objections to UOJ / #7- Does spiritual identity disprove UOJ?). Therefore, it is impossible for a man to be a believer and the most ungodly, wicked man on earth at the same time. A critically important distinction is to be made between the man himself and his behavior (his sinful acts). While a believer may commit ungodly, wicked acts he, himself is not ungodly or wicked as a believer. The reality (which is objectively true whether anyone believes it or not, by the way) is that there is only the godly and the ungodly (the believer and the unbeliever, respectively), not ungodly believers as Mr Becker would have us believe (if he is referring to a believer in his statement). Yes, the believer can do some ungodly things (according to the remaining sinful flesh), but he, himself, is not ungodly. He is righteous…made new (a new condition) by the Holy Spirit and therefore a saint in God’s eyes (a new status), though he still commits sin, as well. Whether Mr. Becker is referring to a believer or an unbeliever, his theology (regarding this quote) is awful, either way. One then ought to ask himself, is Mr. Becker’s theology always so poor, or his belief in UOJ (coupled with his attempts to try to force it into the bible) just bringing out the worst in his overall thinking and his theology? If UOJ is indeed false, should it be any surprise that otherwise good theologians will falter considerably when trying to make it fit with Scripture, even though it does not? Put another way, is there any legitimate way to take something false and try to wrangle it into truth, without having to do some pretty significant theological gymnastics?
7. This is precisely what a false doctrine does. It blinds us to reality. All false doctrine carried to it’s logical conclusion, ends in spiritual death. Fortunately, it seems the Holy Spirit often keeps many of us blissfully ignorant by preventing us from carrying wrong ideas to their logical conclusions.
Go Back To Top of List
Go Back To Category Tabs
