Tag: UOJ Objections

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

Category 1 - Direct Objections to UOJ

What is the Unforgivable Sin/Blasphemy of the Spirit?
Good Lutherans understand that the gift of saving faith is just that…a gift, worked in us through the Holy Spirit by way of the means of grace (the gospel in word and sacrament).

Based upon this firm foundation, when an unbeliever (in their unbelief) rejects this work of the Holy Spirit to bring about saving faith, we can rightly understand this to be blasphemy against that which the Holy Spirit is doing to produce faith – blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, himself.

In other words, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is effectively to exert one’s persistent unbelief. Or, put still another way, to blaspheme the Spirit is to choose to remain in unbelief, while resisting the Holy Spirit’s work to prompt one toward faith.

Having said this, let’s look at what Scripture calls the unforgiven sin. The fist two passages (from Hebrews and Acts) help to set the stage for the additional three passages below.

Setting the Stage

~ Hebrews 10:29 How much more severely do you think a man [who has fallen away from the faith] deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

~ Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

In Hebrews, we see that the one who was formerly a believer (but has fallen away from the faith) has, in reality, insulted the Holy Spirit (Spirit of grace). Further, in Acts, we see that Steven, who is speaking to the Jews just before his stoning, states that to reject the gospel message is to “resist the Holy Spirit.”

This brings us to the words of our Lord who states clearly that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

The Unforgivable Sin

~ Mark 3:28-29 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.”

~ Luke 12:10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

~ Matthew 12:31-32 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 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.

In Mark, we learn that all other sins and blasphemies will be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

In Luke, we learn that 1) anyone who speaks a word against the son will be forgiven, but that 2) anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

Finally, in Matthew, we learn that 1) every sin and blasphemy (including speaking against the son) will be forgiven, but that 2) anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Moreover, we also learn that 3) this lack of forgiveness will be the reality for both this age and the age to come.

UOJ Disproved
This last part is the “nail in the coffin” to disproving UOJ. Jesus makes it very clear that blasphemy against the spirit will NOT be declared forgiven, not only in the age to come, but in this age as well. In other words, the proponent of UOJ would suggest that all people (believer and unbeliever alike) are forgiven, even though the unbeliever will not receive the full benefit of this forgiveness, ultimately in the age to come. But, Matthew not only states that forgiveness will not be realized for the unbeliever in the age to come, but forgiveness will not be granted to him in this age either.

It is as though Jesus is effectively saying that the unbeliever is doubly unforgiven. Maybe Jesus, looking ahead to UOJ, just wanted to make sure everyone was clear on the matter. (Ya, think?)

Law/Gospel Distinction is Misapplied
Moreover, proponents of UOJ like to confuse the debate further by suggesting that according to the law, unbelievers are still condemned, while at the very same time, according the gospel, all (including the unbeliever) have been forgiven. But notice that this passage from Matthew does nothing to suggest that the unbeliever is only condemned according to the law. Rather, in direct refutation of UOJ logic, this passage is expressly stating that the gospel of forgiveness is withheld.

In other words, UOJ would have us believe that the law and the gospel are essentially two sides of the same coin. On one side of the coin the unbeliever is condemned by the law, but on the other side he is forgiven by the gospel….supposedly.

The reality of Scripture, however, is that on one side of the coin the unbeliever is condemned while on the other side he is also not forgiven (see also Acts 3:19).

This passage from Matthew, by itself, emphatically disproves UOJ.

Otherwise, according to the proponent of UOJ, what we are supposed to conclude from this passage in Matthew, is that the reality of what Jesus is saying is, “All sins and blasphemies for all people of all time will be forgiven, even the sin of blasphemy against the Spirit. This forgiveness will be applied to each and every individual, even to the unbeliever. Yet, I tell you, even though this sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is forgiven, it will also never be forgiven in this age or in the age to come.”

Now, I ask you, does this sound like our God of order and justice?

But, What About…?
Some might object, “Ah, but…what about the first half of the above passages, which states that ‘all other blasphemies will be forgiven’? Doesn’t this demonstrate the truth of UOJ?”  “In each of the gospel accounts mentioned above…” The proponent of UOJ might continue to say, “Jesus is doing the talking. Historically speaking, he spoke these words before he went to the cross, so isn’t Jesus saying that once he dies on the cross to pay for all sin, then, at that time, all men will be forgiven for all of their blasphemies?”

Absolutely not!

How do I know?

Because the second half of each passage won’t allow me to come to a typical UOJ conclusion, as I have already explained.

In fact, what both halves of each passage really suggest is the reality of JIC. If all sin is forgiven in Christ, then while the sin is forgiven, the sinner is not…that forgiveness remains in Christ. Only the one who is in Christ receives that forgiveness. The one outside of Christ (due to his persistent resistance of the work of the Holy Spirit – his blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) remains unforgiven.

The unforgivable sin, by itself, disproves UOJ.

But, you’ll have to decide for yourself, seeking the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit, which makes more sense 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 “the gospel withheld” in it’s entirety.

Related Question: What is the difference between the gospel withheld and the unforgivable sin?
Close

 

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

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

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
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.

 

Back to Category Tabs

Final Thoughts

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)