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.
Question/Objection (A) | But, I still don't understand _________ (fill in the blank), can you help me?
Question/Objection to UOJ:
But, I still don’t understand_____(fill in the blank)
(As in, “But, I still don’t understand how someone can be declared righteous and condemned at the same time?”)
Defense for UOJ:
Let me explain it, again…and again…and again…
I once attended a series of Bible studies on the book of Romans as part of my former Lutheran congregation. On one particular Sunday morning, early in the class, we turned our attention to the subject of UOJ. The pastor spent the entire class that day discussing UOJ, going back and forth and back and forth, effectively giving the same responses over and over as people wrestled with the subject. In a congregation known for its well attended and discussion-filled Bible studies, this was the liveliest discussion I had ever witnessed in several years of attendance there.
But it didn’t end there. The following Sunday, I’d swear we had a nearly identical discussion to the week before. The pastor was intent on taking time with this topic due to the importance of justification. As I recall, I did not attend the next two Sundays for one reason or another (I believe I was out of town at least one of the two Sundays). Following the two week break, I returned to the class, only to discover, we were still having the same discussion that we had been having during the first two weeks on UOJ.
Let me be clear, 1) when you do the math, we were now on week five of UOJ, and 2) I am not merely saying we spent five weeks digging into every nitty-gritty detail of UOJ in depth. I am saying (what seemed to be the case, since I was absent for two of the five weeks) that the same few things were repeated over and over for five weeks, before the pastor finally gave up on this most important topic and decided to move on with the rest of Romans. In other words, for 5 weeks he essentially said, “Let me explain it, again…and again…and again. If I just keep repeating the same few things over and over, maybe something will eventually stick.”
Analysis:
On the surface, it may sound like I am suggesting this pastor did a fine job (for 5 weeks straight) of patiently addressing confusion and concerns from his flock. I do believe this was his intention. But, the point I am really getting at is this. The pastor assumed the accuracy of UOJ despite many concerns, and objections and rather than digging into Scripture to clarify or to even question the validity of UOJ, he simply spoke (mostly) off-the-top-of-his-head, essentially stating the same things over and over again, hoping that if he just repeated himself one more time, or one more time in a slightly different way, then finally this convoluted teaching on UOJ would resonate and all of the concerns/objections would go away.
I’ve seen this phenomenon over and over again in UOJ circles. I’ve come to call it, arguing from the argument, rather than from Scripture. While the original argument may indeed stem from a particular passage of Scripture (often yanked out of context), the argument as a whole tends to center solely around man’s reason and logic, rather than (ironically) objective truths of Scripture (allowing the whole of Scripture to interpret itself). When the hearer raises objections from different passages of Scripture (rather than the UOJ “proof” passage), the proponent of UOJ often sidesteps those passages and simply returns to his arguing from his original argument.
I would suggest the possibility that the only reason this happens, in the first place, is because proponents of UOJ cannot honestly defend their beliefs from Scripture and therefore, find themselves backed into a corner and have to rely on their own faulty, traditional, UOJ argumentation strategies…and, no matter how much these strategies fail to stand up to the rest of Scripture, the proponent of UOJ just keeps repeating them over and over again, in hopes that this will eventually silence those who are questioning the validity of UOJ.
Or, at the other end of the spectrum, proponents of UOJ will only repeat themselves a couple of times, and when the one questioning UOJ fails to readily give up and admit defeat due to the supposed overwhelming evidence for the “truth” of UOJ, then the proponent of UOJ writes off this questioner as a persistent errorist who refuses to listen to supposedly sound doctrine and the discussion is over…end of story. Could it be that the proponent of UOJ has nowhere else to go in his own argumentation, so he just gives up, blaming it on the questioner who dares to question UOJ?
Sadly, in a number of situations, rather than simply giving up and moving on to complete a Bible study on the book of Romans (such as my pastor did), or even dismissing the discussion as being the result of persistent error, church members, pastors, or even whole congregations have been disfellowshiped instead.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting that disfellowshiping is never a legitimate response to doctrinal error. I am, instead, suggesting that no matter how much a person objects to UOJ on biblical grounds, proponents of UOJ often refuse to tolerate it, or even discuss it in any real detail…FROM SCRIPTURE. They simply cling to their long-standing UOJ arguments from (supposedly sound) reasoning and/or the supposed position of the Lutheran Confessions or other Lutherans and expect others to blindly and obediently comply…or else. (Did you ever notice this same sort of thing comes from evolutionists when the subject of creation/design comes up…questioning evolution, in evolutionary circles is simply not allowed. One must comply…or else. What are the evolutionists and the UOJ’ers so afraid of, if their views are so accurate? Why not welcome discussion…if their “truth” is so obviously true? Could it be that proponents of either position (evolution or UOJ) ultimately recognize, somewhere inside, that their version of “truth” is actually flawed and therefore they don’t want to unpack it any more than they have to? But, I digress).
Did I Mention…?
Have I mentioned yet, that UOJ is a confusing, convoluted, and controversial doctrine. Oh, and one which just so happens (in my view) to be so, due to its falsehood, in light of Scripture? Did I also mention that proponents of UOJ don’t seem to lessen the problematic nature of the topic with their flawed argumentation strategies?
Oh, wait…maybe that’s just what we should expect from a false, misleading doctrine which can never really add up in the hearts and minds of even its adherents, since falsehood can never add up to truth. Maybe there is a reason why even the proponents of UOJ themselves seem to be confused and to disagree (on some level) with each other (a subject I’ll not get into in any detail on this site – differing views from the proponents of UOJ, that is).
Maybe this is at least part of the reason they are often so quick to disfellowship, rather than to legitimately discuss, debate, consider, and prayerfully discern in light of Scripture. And instead, effectively say, “let me explain it (using the same faulty UOJ arguments) again…and again…and again.”
Truth be told, maybe they don’t legitimately know how to respond beyond the usual defenses of UOJ (which we’ll look at next), which themselves fail to stand up to close scrutiny. Maybe it’s easier to simply dismiss (literally, through disfellowshipping) your opposition, than it is to engage in thoughtful, loving discussion.
But, then again, I could be wrong. You’ll have to decide for yourself whether or not there could be anything of value to my own understanding of Scripture or the problems surrounding UOJ.
What About You?
What do you think? Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture, UOJ or JIC…or something else?
Category 2 – Analyzing the Defense of UOJ
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.
Question/Objection (A) | But, I still don't understand _________ (fill in the blank), can you help me?
Question/Objection to UOJ:
But, I still don’t understand_____(fill in the blank)
(As in, “But, I still don’t understand how someone can be declared righteous and condemned at the same time?”)
Defense for UOJ:
Let me explain it, again…and again…and again…
I once attended a series of Bible studies on the book of Romans as part of my former Lutheran congregation. On one particular Sunday morning, early in the class, we turned our attention to the subject of UOJ. The pastor spent the entire class that day discussing UOJ, going back and forth and back and forth, effectively giving the same responses over and over as people wrestled with the subject. In a congregation known for its well attended and discussion-filled Bible studies, this was the liveliest discussion I had ever witnessed in several years of attendance there.
But it didn’t end there. The following Sunday, I’d swear we had a nearly identical discussion to the week before. The pastor was intent on taking time with this topic due to the importance of justification. As I recall, I did not attend the next two Sundays for one reason or another (I believe I was out of town at least one of the two Sundays). Following the two week break, I returned to the class, only to discover, we were still having the same discussion that we had been having during the first two weeks on UOJ.
Let me be clear, 1) when you do the math, we were now on week five of UOJ, and 2) I am not merely saying we spent five weeks digging into every nitty-gritty detail of UOJ in depth. I am saying (what seemed to be the case, since I was absent for two of the five weeks) that the same few things were repeated over and over for five weeks, before the pastor finally gave up on this most important topic and decided to move on with the rest of Romans. In other words, for 5 weeks he essentially said, “Let me explain it, again…and again…and again. If I just keep repeating the same few things over and over, maybe something will eventually stick.”
Analysis:
On the surface, it may sound like I am suggesting this pastor did a fine job (for 5 weeks straight) of patiently addressing confusion and concerns from his flock. I do believe this was his intention. But, the point I am really getting at is this. The pastor assumed the accuracy of UOJ despite many concerns, and objections and rather than digging into Scripture to clarify or to even question the validity of UOJ, he simply spoke (mostly) off-the-top-of-his-head, essentially stating the same things over and over again, hoping that if he just repeated himself one more time, or one more time in a slightly different way, then finally this convoluted teaching on UOJ would resonate and all of the concerns/objections would go away.
I’ve seen this phenomenon over and over again in UOJ circles. I’ve come to call it, arguing from the argument, rather than from Scripture. While the original argument may indeed stem from a particular passage of Scripture (often yanked out of context), the argument as a whole tends to center solely around man’s reason and logic, rather than (ironically) objective truths of Scripture (allowing the whole of Scripture to interpret itself). When the hearer raises objections from different passages of Scripture (rather than the UOJ “proof” passage), the proponent of UOJ often sidesteps those passages and simply returns to his arguing from his original argument.
I would suggest the possibility that the only reason this happens, in the first place, is because proponents of UOJ cannot honestly defend their beliefs from Scripture and therefore, find themselves backed into a corner and have to rely on their own faulty, traditional, UOJ argumentation strategies…and, no matter how much these strategies fail to stand up to the rest of Scripture, the proponent of UOJ just keeps repeating them over and over again, in hopes that this will eventually silence those who are questioning the validity of UOJ.
Or, at the other end of the spectrum, proponents of UOJ will only repeat themselves a couple of times, and when the one questioning UOJ fails to readily give up and admit defeat due to the supposed overwhelming evidence for the “truth” of UOJ, then the proponent of UOJ writes off this questioner as a persistent errorist who refuses to listen to supposedly sound doctrine and the discussion is over…end of story. Could it be that the proponent of UOJ has nowhere else to go in his own argumentation, so he just gives up, blaming it on the questioner who dares to question UOJ?
Sadly, in a number of situations, rather than simply giving up and moving on to complete a Bible study on the book of Romans (such as my pastor did), or even dismissing the discussion as being the result of persistent error, church members, pastors, or even whole congregations have been disfellowshiped instead.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting that disfellowshiping is never a legitimate response to doctrinal error. I am, instead, suggesting that no matter how much a person objects to UOJ on biblical grounds, proponents of UOJ often refuse to tolerate it, or even discuss it in any real detail…FROM SCRIPTURE. They simply cling to their long-standing UOJ arguments from (supposedly sound) reasoning and/or the supposed position of the Lutheran Confessions or other Lutherans and expect others to blindly and obediently comply…or else. (Did you ever notice this same sort of thing comes from evolutionists when the subject of creation/design comes up…questioning evolution, in evolutionary circles is simply not allowed. One must comply…or else. What are the evolutionists and the UOJ’ers so afraid of, if their views are so accurate? Why not welcome discussion…if their “truth” is so obviously true? Could it be that proponents of either position (evolution or UOJ) ultimately recognize, somewhere inside, that their version of “truth” is actually flawed and therefore they don’t want to unpack it any more than they have to? But, I digress).
Did I Mention…?
Have I mentioned yet, that UOJ is a confusing, convoluted, and controversial doctrine. Oh, and one which just so happens (in my view) to be so, due to its falsehood, in light of Scripture? Did I also mention that proponents of UOJ don’t seem to lessen the problematic nature of the topic with their flawed argumentation strategies?
Oh, wait…maybe that’s just what we should expect from a false, misleading doctrine which can never really add up in the hearts and minds of even its adherents, since falsehood can never add up to truth. Maybe there is a reason why even the proponents of UOJ themselves seem to be confused and to disagree (on some level) with each other (a subject I’ll not get into in any detail on this site – differing views from the proponents of UOJ, that is).
Maybe this is at least part of the reason they are often so quick to disfellowship, rather than to legitimately discuss, debate, consider, and prayerfully discern in light of Scripture. And instead, effectively say, “let me explain it (using the same faulty UOJ arguments) again…and again…and again.”
Truth be told, maybe they don’t legitimately know how to respond beyond the usual defenses of UOJ (which we’ll look at next), which themselves fail to stand up to close scrutiny. Maybe it’s easier to simply dismiss (literally, through disfellowshipping) your opposition, than it is to engage in thoughtful, loving discussion.
But, then again, I could be wrong. You’ll have to decide for yourself whether or not there could be anything of value to my own understanding of Scripture or the problems surrounding UOJ.
What About You?
What do you think? Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture, UOJ or JIC…or something else?
Question/Objection (A) | But, I still don't understand _________ (fill in the blank), can you help me?
Question/Objection to UOJ:
But, I still don’t understand_____(fill in the blank)
(As in, “But, I still don’t understand how someone can be declared righteous and condemned at the same time?”)
Defense for UOJ:
Let me explain it, again…and again…and again…
I once attended a series of Bible studies on the book of Romans as part of my former Lutheran congregation. On one particular Sunday morning, early in the class, we turned our attention to the subject of UOJ. The pastor spent the entire class that day discussing UOJ, going back and forth and back and forth, effectively giving the same responses over and over as people wrestled with the subject. In a congregation known for its well attended and discussion-filled Bible studies, this was the liveliest discussion I had ever witnessed in several years of attendance there.
But it didn’t end there. The following Sunday, I’d swear we had a nearly identical discussion to the week before. The pastor was intent on taking time with this topic due to the importance of justification. As I recall, I did not attend the next two Sundays for one reason or another (I believe I was out of town at least one of the two Sundays). Following the two week break, I returned to the class, only to discover, we were still having the same discussion that we had been having during the first two weeks on UOJ.
Let me be clear, 1) when you do the math, we were now on week five of UOJ, and 2) I am not merely saying we spent five weeks digging into every nitty-gritty detail of UOJ in depth. I am saying (what seemed to be the case, since I was absent for two of the five weeks) that the same few things were repeated over and over for five weeks, before the pastor finally gave up on this most important topic and decided to move on with the rest of Romans. In other words, for 5 weeks he essentially said, “Let me explain it, again…and again…and again. If I just keep repeating the same few things over and over, maybe something will eventually stick.”
Analysis:
On the surface, it may sound like I am suggesting this pastor did a fine job (for 5 weeks straight) of patiently addressing confusion and concerns from his flock. I do believe this was his intention. But, the point I am really getting at is this. The pastor assumed the accuracy of UOJ despite many concerns, and objections and rather than digging into Scripture to clarify or to even question the validity of UOJ, he simply spoke (mostly) off-the-top-of-his-head, essentially stating the same things over and over again, hoping that if he just repeated himself one more time, or one more time in a slightly different way, then finally this convoluted teaching on UOJ would resonate and all of the concerns/objections would go away.
I’ve seen this phenomenon over and over again in UOJ circles. I’ve come to call it, arguing from the argument, rather than from Scripture. While the original argument may indeed stem from a particular passage of Scripture (often yanked out of context), the argument as a whole tends to center solely around man’s reason and logic, rather than (ironically) objective truths of Scripture (allowing the whole of Scripture to interpret itself). When the hearer raises objections from different passages of Scripture (rather than the UOJ “proof” passage), the proponent of UOJ often sidesteps those passages and simply returns to his arguing from his original argument.
I would suggest the possibility that the only reason this happens, in the first place, is because proponents of UOJ cannot honestly defend their beliefs from Scripture and therefore, find themselves backed into a corner and have to rely on their own faulty, traditional, UOJ argumentation strategies…and, no matter how much these strategies fail to stand up to the rest of Scripture, the proponent of UOJ just keeps repeating them over and over again, in hopes that this will eventually silence those who are questioning the validity of UOJ.
Or, at the other end of the spectrum, proponents of UOJ will only repeat themselves a couple of times, and when the one questioning UOJ fails to readily give up and admit defeat due to the supposed overwhelming evidence for the “truth” of UOJ, then the proponent of UOJ writes off this questioner as a persistent errorist who refuses to listen to supposedly sound doctrine and the discussion is over…end of story. Could it be that the proponent of UOJ has nowhere else to go in his own argumentation, so he just gives up, blaming it on the questioner who dares to question UOJ?
Sadly, in a number of situations, rather than simply giving up and moving on to complete a Bible study on the book of Romans (such as my pastor did), or even dismissing the discussion as being the result of persistent error, church members, pastors, or even whole congregations have been disfellowshiped instead.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting that disfellowshiping is never a legitimate response to doctrinal error. I am, instead, suggesting that no matter how much a person objects to UOJ on biblical grounds, proponents of UOJ often refuse to tolerate it, or even discuss it in any real detail…FROM SCRIPTURE. They simply cling to their long-standing UOJ arguments from (supposedly sound) reasoning and/or the supposed position of the Lutheran Confessions or other Lutherans and expect others to blindly and obediently comply…or else. (Did you ever notice this same sort of thing comes from evolutionists when the subject of creation/design comes up…questioning evolution, in evolutionary circles is simply not allowed. One must comply…or else. What are the evolutionists and the UOJ’ers so afraid of, if their views are so accurate? Why not welcome discussion…if their “truth” is so obviously true? Could it be that proponents of either position (evolution or UOJ) ultimately recognize, somewhere inside, that their version of “truth” is actually flawed and therefore they don’t want to unpack it any more than they have to? But, I digress).
Did I Mention…?
Have I mentioned yet, that UOJ is a confusing, convoluted, and controversial doctrine. Oh, and one which just so happens (in my view) to be so, due to its falsehood, in light of Scripture? Did I also mention that proponents of UOJ don’t seem to lessen the problematic nature of the topic with their flawed argumentation strategies?
Oh, wait…maybe that’s just what we should expect from a false, misleading doctrine which can never really add up in the hearts and minds of even its adherents, since falsehood can never add up to truth. Maybe there is a reason why even the proponents of UOJ themselves seem to be confused and to disagree (on some level) with each other (a subject I’ll not get into in any detail on this site – differing views from the proponents of UOJ, that is).
Maybe this is at least part of the reason they are often so quick to disfellowship, rather than to legitimately discuss, debate, consider, and prayerfully discern in light of Scripture. And instead, effectively say, “let me explain it (using the same faulty UOJ arguments) again…and again…and again.”
Truth be told, maybe they don’t legitimately know how to respond beyond the usual defenses of UOJ (which we’ll look at next), which themselves fail to stand up to close scrutiny. Maybe it’s easier to simply dismiss (literally, through disfellowshipping) your opposition, than it is to engage in thoughtful, loving discussion.
But, then again, I could be wrong. You’ll have to decide for yourself whether or not there could be anything of value to my own understanding of Scripture or the problems surrounding UOJ.
What About You?
What do you think? Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture, UOJ or JIC…or something else?
Question/Objection (A) | But, I still don't understand _________ (fill in the blank), can you help me?
Question/Objection to UOJ:
But, I still don’t understand_____(fill in the blank)
(As in, “But, I still don’t understand how someone can be declared righteous and condemned at the same time?”)
Defense for UOJ:
Let me explain it, again…and again…and again…
I once attended a series of Bible studies on the book of Romans as part of my former Lutheran congregation. On one particular Sunday morning, early in the class, we turned our attention to the subject of UOJ. The pastor spent the entire class that day discussing UOJ, going back and forth and back and forth, effectively giving the same responses over and over as people wrestled with the subject. In a congregation known for its well attended and discussion-filled Bible studies, this was the liveliest discussion I had ever witnessed in several years of attendance there.
But it didn’t end there. The following Sunday, I’d swear we had a nearly identical discussion to the week before. The pastor was intent on taking time with this topic due to the importance of justification. As I recall, I did not attend the next two Sundays for one reason or another (I believe I was out of town at least one of the two Sundays). Following the two week break, I returned to the class, only to discover, we were still having the same discussion that we had been having during the first two weeks on UOJ.
Let me be clear, 1) when you do the math, we were now on week five of UOJ, and 2) I am not merely saying we spent five weeks digging into every nitty-gritty detail of UOJ in depth. I am saying (what seemed to be the case, since I was absent for two of the five weeks) that the same few things were repeated over and over for five weeks, before the pastor finally gave up on this most important topic and decided to move on with the rest of Romans. In other words, for 5 weeks he essentially said, “Let me explain it, again…and again…and again. If I just keep repeating the same few things over and over, maybe something will eventually stick.”
Analysis:
On the surface, it may sound like I am suggesting this pastor did a fine job (for 5 weeks straight) of patiently addressing confusion and concerns from his flock. I do believe this was his intention. But, the point I am really getting at is this. The pastor assumed the accuracy of UOJ despite many concerns, and objections and rather than digging into Scripture to clarify or to even question the validity of UOJ, he simply spoke (mostly) off-the-top-of-his-head, essentially stating the same things over and over again, hoping that if he just repeated himself one more time, or one more time in a slightly different way, then finally this convoluted teaching on UOJ would resonate and all of the concerns/objections would go away.
I’ve seen this phenomenon over and over again in UOJ circles. I’ve come to call it, arguing from the argument, rather than from Scripture. While the original argument may indeed stem from a particular passage of Scripture (often yanked out of context), the argument as a whole tends to center solely around man’s reason and logic, rather than (ironically) objective truths of Scripture (allowing the whole of Scripture to interpret itself). When the hearer raises objections from different passages of Scripture (rather than the UOJ “proof” passage), the proponent of UOJ often sidesteps those passages and simply returns to his arguing from his original argument.
I would suggest the possibility that the only reason this happens, in the first place, is because proponents of UOJ cannot honestly defend their beliefs from Scripture and therefore, find themselves backed into a corner and have to rely on their own faulty, traditional, UOJ argumentation strategies…and, no matter how much these strategies fail to stand up to the rest of Scripture, the proponent of UOJ just keeps repeating them over and over again, in hopes that this will eventually silence those who are questioning the validity of UOJ.
Or, at the other end of the spectrum, proponents of UOJ will only repeat themselves a couple of times, and when the one questioning UOJ fails to readily give up and admit defeat due to the supposed overwhelming evidence for the “truth” of UOJ, then the proponent of UOJ writes off this questioner as a persistent errorist who refuses to listen to supposedly sound doctrine and the discussion is over…end of story. Could it be that the proponent of UOJ has nowhere else to go in his own argumentation, so he just gives up, blaming it on the questioner who dares to question UOJ?
Sadly, in a number of situations, rather than simply giving up and moving on to complete a Bible study on the book of Romans (such as my pastor did), or even dismissing the discussion as being the result of persistent error, church members, pastors, or even whole congregations have been disfellowshiped instead.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting that disfellowshiping is never a legitimate response to doctrinal error. I am, instead, suggesting that no matter how much a person objects to UOJ on biblical grounds, proponents of UOJ often refuse to tolerate it, or even discuss it in any real detail…FROM SCRIPTURE. They simply cling to their long-standing UOJ arguments from (supposedly sound) reasoning and/or the supposed position of the Lutheran Confessions or other Lutherans and expect others to blindly and obediently comply…or else. (Did you ever notice this same sort of thing comes from evolutionists when the subject of creation/design comes up…questioning evolution, in evolutionary circles is simply not allowed. One must comply…or else. What are the evolutionists and the UOJ’ers so afraid of, if their views are so accurate? Why not welcome discussion…if their “truth” is so obviously true? Could it be that proponents of either position (evolution or UOJ) ultimately recognize, somewhere inside, that their version of “truth” is actually flawed and therefore they don’t want to unpack it any more than they have to? But, I digress).
Did I Mention…?
Have I mentioned yet, that UOJ is a confusing, convoluted, and controversial doctrine. Oh, and one which just so happens (in my view) to be so, due to its falsehood, in light of Scripture? Did I also mention that proponents of UOJ don’t seem to lessen the problematic nature of the topic with their flawed argumentation strategies?
Oh, wait…maybe that’s just what we should expect from a false, misleading doctrine which can never really add up in the hearts and minds of even its adherents, since falsehood can never add up to truth. Maybe there is a reason why even the proponents of UOJ themselves seem to be confused and to disagree (on some level) with each other (a subject I’ll not get into in any detail on this site – differing views from the proponents of UOJ, that is).
Maybe this is at least part of the reason they are often so quick to disfellowship, rather than to legitimately discuss, debate, consider, and prayerfully discern in light of Scripture. And instead, effectively say, “let me explain it (using the same faulty UOJ arguments) again…and again…and again.”
Truth be told, maybe they don’t legitimately know how to respond beyond the usual defenses of UOJ (which we’ll look at next), which themselves fail to stand up to close scrutiny. Maybe it’s easier to simply dismiss (literally, through disfellowshipping) your opposition, than it is to engage in thoughtful, loving discussion.
But, then again, I could be wrong. You’ll have to decide for yourself whether or not there could be anything of value to my own understanding of Scripture or the problems surrounding UOJ.
What About You?
What do you think? Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture, UOJ or JIC…or something else?
Question/Objection (A) | But, I still don't understand _________ (fill in the blank), can you help me?
Question/Objection to UOJ:
But, I still don’t understand_____(fill in the blank)
(As in, “But, I still don’t understand how someone can be declared righteous and condemned at the same time?”)
Defense for UOJ:
Let me explain it, again…and again…and again…
I once attended a series of Bible studies on the book of Romans as part of my former Lutheran congregation. On one particular Sunday morning, early in the class, we turned our attention to the subject of UOJ. The pastor spent the entire class that day discussing UOJ, going back and forth and back and forth, effectively giving the same responses over and over as people wrestled with the subject. In a congregation known for its well attended and discussion-filled Bible studies, this was the liveliest discussion I had ever witnessed in several years of attendance there.
But it didn’t end there. The following Sunday, I’d swear we had a nearly identical discussion to the week before. The pastor was intent on taking time with this topic due to the importance of justification. As I recall, I did not attend the next two Sundays for one reason or another (I believe I was out of town at least one of the two Sundays). Following the two week break, I returned to the class, only to discover, we were still having the same discussion that we had been having during the first two weeks on UOJ.
Let me be clear, 1) when you do the math, we were now on week five of UOJ, and 2) I am not merely saying we spent five weeks digging into every nitty-gritty detail of UOJ in depth. I am saying (what seemed to be the case, since I was absent for two of the five weeks) that the same few things were repeated over and over for five weeks, before the pastor finally gave up on this most important topic and decided to move on with the rest of Romans. In other words, for 5 weeks he essentially said, “Let me explain it, again…and again…and again. If I just keep repeating the same few things over and over, maybe something will eventually stick.”
Analysis:
On the surface, it may sound like I am suggesting this pastor did a fine job (for 5 weeks straight) of patiently addressing confusion and concerns from his flock. I do believe this was his intention. But, the point I am really getting at is this. The pastor assumed the accuracy of UOJ despite many concerns, and objections and rather than digging into Scripture to clarify or to even question the validity of UOJ, he simply spoke (mostly) off-the-top-of-his-head, essentially stating the same things over and over again, hoping that if he just repeated himself one more time, or one more time in a slightly different way, then finally this convoluted teaching on UOJ would resonate and all of the concerns/objections would go away.
I’ve seen this phenomenon over and over again in UOJ circles. I’ve come to call it, arguing from the argument, rather than from Scripture. While the original argument may indeed stem from a particular passage of Scripture (often yanked out of context), the argument as a whole tends to center solely around man’s reason and logic, rather than (ironically) objective truths of Scripture (allowing the whole of Scripture to interpret itself). When the hearer raises objections from different passages of Scripture (rather than the UOJ “proof” passage), the proponent of UOJ often sidesteps those passages and simply returns to his arguing from his original argument.
I would suggest the possibility that the only reason this happens, in the first place, is because proponents of UOJ cannot honestly defend their beliefs from Scripture and therefore, find themselves backed into a corner and have to rely on their own faulty, traditional, UOJ argumentation strategies…and, no matter how much these strategies fail to stand up to the rest of Scripture, the proponent of UOJ just keeps repeating them over and over again, in hopes that this will eventually silence those who are questioning the validity of UOJ.
Or, at the other end of the spectrum, proponents of UOJ will only repeat themselves a couple of times, and when the one questioning UOJ fails to readily give up and admit defeat due to the supposed overwhelming evidence for the “truth” of UOJ, then the proponent of UOJ writes off this questioner as a persistent errorist who refuses to listen to supposedly sound doctrine and the discussion is over…end of story. Could it be that the proponent of UOJ has nowhere else to go in his own argumentation, so he just gives up, blaming it on the questioner who dares to question UOJ?
Sadly, in a number of situations, rather than simply giving up and moving on to complete a Bible study on the book of Romans (such as my pastor did), or even dismissing the discussion as being the result of persistent error, church members, pastors, or even whole congregations have been disfellowshiped instead.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting that disfellowshiping is never a legitimate response to doctrinal error. I am, instead, suggesting that no matter how much a person objects to UOJ on biblical grounds, proponents of UOJ often refuse to tolerate it, or even discuss it in any real detail…FROM SCRIPTURE. They simply cling to their long-standing UOJ arguments from (supposedly sound) reasoning and/or the supposed position of the Lutheran Confessions or other Lutherans and expect others to blindly and obediently comply…or else. (Did you ever notice this same sort of thing comes from evolutionists when the subject of creation/design comes up…questioning evolution, in evolutionary circles is simply not allowed. One must comply…or else. What are the evolutionists and the UOJ’ers so afraid of, if their views are so accurate? Why not welcome discussion…if their “truth” is so obviously true? Could it be that proponents of either position (evolution or UOJ) ultimately recognize, somewhere inside, that their version of “truth” is actually flawed and therefore they don’t want to unpack it any more than they have to? But, I digress).
Did I Mention…?
Have I mentioned yet, that UOJ is a confusing, convoluted, and controversial doctrine. Oh, and one which just so happens (in my view) to be so, due to its falsehood, in light of Scripture? Did I also mention that proponents of UOJ don’t seem to lessen the problematic nature of the topic with their flawed argumentation strategies?
Oh, wait…maybe that’s just what we should expect from a false, misleading doctrine which can never really add up in the hearts and minds of even its adherents, since falsehood can never add up to truth. Maybe there is a reason why even the proponents of UOJ themselves seem to be confused and to disagree (on some level) with each other (a subject I’ll not get into in any detail on this site – differing views from the proponents of UOJ, that is).
Maybe this is at least part of the reason they are often so quick to disfellowship, rather than to legitimately discuss, debate, consider, and prayerfully discern in light of Scripture. And instead, effectively say, “let me explain it (using the same faulty UOJ arguments) again…and again…and again.”
Truth be told, maybe they don’t legitimately know how to respond beyond the usual defenses of UOJ (which we’ll look at next), which themselves fail to stand up to close scrutiny. Maybe it’s easier to simply dismiss (literally, through disfellowshipping) your opposition, than it is to engage in thoughtful, loving discussion.
But, then again, I could be wrong. You’ll have to decide for yourself whether or not there could be anything of value to my own understanding of Scripture or the problems surrounding UOJ.
What About You?
What do you think? Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture, UOJ or JIC…or something else?
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.
Question/Objection (A) | But, I still don't understand _________ (fill in the blank), can you help me?
Question/Objection to UOJ:
But, I still don’t understand_____(fill in the blank)
(As in, “But, I still don’t understand how someone can be declared righteous and condemned at the same time?”)
Defense for UOJ:
Let me explain it, again…and again…and again…
I once attended a series of Bible studies on the book of Romans as part of my former Lutheran congregation. On one particular Sunday morning, early in the class, we turned our attention to the subject of UOJ. The pastor spent the entire class that day discussing UOJ, going back and forth and back and forth, effectively giving the same responses over and over as people wrestled with the subject. In a congregation known for its well attended and discussion-filled Bible studies, this was the liveliest discussion I had ever witnessed in several years of attendance there.
But it didn’t end there. The following Sunday, I’d swear we had a nearly identical discussion to the week before. The pastor was intent on taking time with this topic due to the importance of justification. As I recall, I did not attend the next two Sundays for one reason or another (I believe I was out of town at least one of the two Sundays). Following the two week break, I returned to the class, only to discover, we were still having the same discussion that we had been having during the first two weeks on UOJ.
Let me be clear, 1) when you do the math, we were now on week five of UOJ, and 2) I am not merely saying we spent five weeks digging into every nitty-gritty detail of UOJ in depth. I am saying (what seemed to be the case, since I was absent for two of the five weeks) that the same few things were repeated over and over for five weeks, before the pastor finally gave up on this most important topic and decided to move on with the rest of Romans. In other words, for 5 weeks he essentially said, “Let me explain it, again…and again…and again. If I just keep repeating the same few things over and over, maybe something will eventually stick.”
Analysis:
On the surface, it may sound like I am suggesting this pastor did a fine job (for 5 weeks straight) of patiently addressing confusion and concerns from his flock. I do believe this was his intention. But, the point I am really getting at is this. The pastor assumed the accuracy of UOJ despite many concerns, and objections and rather than digging into Scripture to clarify or to even question the validity of UOJ, he simply spoke (mostly) off-the-top-of-his-head, essentially stating the same things over and over again, hoping that if he just repeated himself one more time, or one more time in a slightly different way, then finally this convoluted teaching on UOJ would resonate and all of the concerns/objections would go away.
I’ve seen this phenomenon over and over again in UOJ circles. I’ve come to call it, arguing from the argument, rather than from Scripture. While the original argument may indeed stem from a particular passage of Scripture (often yanked out of context), the argument as a whole tends to center solely around man’s reason and logic, rather than (ironically) objective truths of Scripture (allowing the whole of Scripture to interpret itself). When the hearer raises objections from different passages of Scripture (rather than the UOJ “proof” passage), the proponent of UOJ often sidesteps those passages and simply returns to his arguing from his original argument.
I would suggest the possibility that the only reason this happens, in the first place, is because proponents of UOJ cannot honestly defend their beliefs from Scripture and therefore, find themselves backed into a corner and have to rely on their own faulty, traditional, UOJ argumentation strategies…and, no matter how much these strategies fail to stand up to the rest of Scripture, the proponent of UOJ just keeps repeating them over and over again, in hopes that this will eventually silence those who are questioning the validity of UOJ.
Or, at the other end of the spectrum, proponents of UOJ will only repeat themselves a couple of times, and when the one questioning UOJ fails to readily give up and admit defeat due to the supposed overwhelming evidence for the “truth” of UOJ, then the proponent of UOJ writes off this questioner as a persistent errorist who refuses to listen to supposedly sound doctrine and the discussion is over…end of story. Could it be that the proponent of UOJ has nowhere else to go in his own argumentation, so he just gives up, blaming it on the questioner who dares to question UOJ?
Sadly, in a number of situations, rather than simply giving up and moving on to complete a Bible study on the book of Romans (such as my pastor did), or even dismissing the discussion as being the result of persistent error, church members, pastors, or even whole congregations have been disfellowshiped instead.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting that disfellowshiping is never a legitimate response to doctrinal error. I am, instead, suggesting that no matter how much a person objects to UOJ on biblical grounds, proponents of UOJ often refuse to tolerate it, or even discuss it in any real detail…FROM SCRIPTURE. They simply cling to their long-standing UOJ arguments from (supposedly sound) reasoning and/or the supposed position of the Lutheran Confessions or other Lutherans and expect others to blindly and obediently comply…or else. (Did you ever notice this same sort of thing comes from evolutionists when the subject of creation/design comes up…questioning evolution, in evolutionary circles is simply not allowed. One must comply…or else. What are the evolutionists and the UOJ’ers so afraid of, if their views are so accurate? Why not welcome discussion…if their “truth” is so obviously true? Could it be that proponents of either position (evolution or UOJ) ultimately recognize, somewhere inside, that their version of “truth” is actually flawed and therefore they don’t want to unpack it any more than they have to? But, I digress).
Did I Mention…?
Have I mentioned yet, that UOJ is a confusing, convoluted, and controversial doctrine. Oh, and one which just so happens (in my view) to be so, due to its falsehood, in light of Scripture? Did I also mention that proponents of UOJ don’t seem to lessen the problematic nature of the topic with their flawed argumentation strategies?
Oh, wait…maybe that’s just what we should expect from a false, misleading doctrine which can never really add up in the hearts and minds of even its adherents, since falsehood can never add up to truth. Maybe there is a reason why even the proponents of UOJ themselves seem to be confused and to disagree (on some level) with each other (a subject I’ll not get into in any detail on this site – differing views from the proponents of UOJ, that is).
Maybe this is at least part of the reason they are often so quick to disfellowship, rather than to legitimately discuss, debate, consider, and prayerfully discern in light of Scripture. And instead, effectively say, “let me explain it (using the same faulty UOJ arguments) again…and again…and again.”
Truth be told, maybe they don’t legitimately know how to respond beyond the usual defenses of UOJ (which we’ll look at next), which themselves fail to stand up to close scrutiny. Maybe it’s easier to simply dismiss (literally, through disfellowshipping) your opposition, than it is to engage in thoughtful, loving discussion.
But, then again, I could be wrong. You’ll have to decide for yourself whether or not there could be anything of value to my own understanding of Scripture or the problems surrounding UOJ.
What About You?
What do you think? Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture, UOJ or JIC…or something else?