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 1 - Direct Objections to UOJ
For Now
Technically, according to the current “official” teachings of UOJ, proponents are quick to reject universalism (the belief that all people are saved) as being an unbiblical, heretical, teaching.
Associated with this, proponents of UOJ also reject any notion of new life or eternal life having been granted to all people apart from saving faith…for now.
Example 1
For example, here is a quote from a pro-UOJ resource:
“Objective justification is not the teaching that everyone, regardless of faith or unbelief, will be saved.” (Justification – Am I good enough for God?, Rolf Preus, page 3, Northwestern Publishing House).
Yet, in the very same booklet, it says this:
“Objective justification guarantees that the means of grace really are means of grace.
‘Friend, are you saved?’
‘Yes, I am saved.’
‘Praise the Lord! When were you saved?’
‘When Jesus took away my sins on the cross. It was then that God saved me and justified me by Jesus’ blood.’” (Justification – Am I good enough for God?, Rolf Preus, pages 18-19, Northwestern Publishing House).
Universalism in Disguise?
Do you see the problem? Though UOJ proponents technically reject universalism (when the subject of universalism is brought up), they also effectively promote it (when not making the connection to universalism). In other words, they do not always seem to be putting two and two together, in the whole of their teaching.
Fact, God’s People Are Prone to Wandering
If there is one thing I have learned over the past 20+ years since my Christian conversion, it is this…our own sinful natures, coupled with the influence of Satan, combine to make an often underestimated, yet powerful force which is bound and determined to lead us astray. In all of human history, it’s a fact, many (if not most) of God’s people have been prone to wander to one extent or another.
Here’s what I mean. Today, UOJ proponents openly reject universalism, while subtly they are also being lead astray (by sin and Satan) to promote it at the very same time. Tomorrow (which could be 10, 25 or 50 years from now), UOJ proponents may no longer be rejecting universalism, but instead, may have been led astray, little-by-little, until they have come to openly embrace it.
Today, those who reject UOJ, while members of a UOJ promoting church body, are disfellowshipped for their rejection of UOJ. Tomorrow, those who reject universalism may be disfellowshipped by those same church bodies who will have, at that time, accepted universalism as sound doctrine.
Far more important than remaining in fellowship or being disfellowshipped, however, will be the multitudes who will have been led astray by this false theology to the point of being separated (or remaining separated) from God for eternity. And, all in the name of sound doctrine.
Example 2
As I wrap up the answer to this Q & A question, I will leave you with one more example of UOJ leading to universalism. This too is from a pro-UOJ resource.
“…God has, as a gift of his grace, justified all men, that is, he has declared them righteous and just. As a result, they [what else can “they” refer to but the previous “all men” and “them”?] are awarded life.
Since this is something that has taken place through Jesus’ life death and resurrection and is an objective reality, it may be spoken of as objective justification. It is also called universal atonement.” (Basic Doctrines of the Bible, Armin W. Schuetze, page 42, Northwestern Publishing House). Emphasis and bracketed text are mine.
In addition to calling it “objective justification” and “universal atonement,” I think there is another term for it – “universalism” (in a not-so-subtle disguise).
No Surprise
My hope and prayer is that many will begin to see UOJ for what it really is; that they will see that the biblical evidence is overwhelmingly against UOJ and stop proclaiming it to the multitudes. If not, we should not be surprised when many are led astray into universalism in the future.
Every false doctrine, carried to its logical conclusion, ends in spiritual death.
Think about it.
Which is more consistent with the truth of Scripture and therefore less likely to lead people away from the Savior, UOJ or JIC?
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.
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.