Question/Objection to UOJ:
Aren’t all people justified/forgiven through faith alone?

Defense for UOJ (Part 5 of 5):
If faith completes justification, Jesus’ words, “It is finished.” become invalidated.

The argument suggests that since, Jesus could not have lied or been mistaken when he said, “It if finished” then, UOJ must be true.

Analysis:
Here again, we have an obviously faulty conclusion built upon flawed reasoning.

Again, I have to say, “Really? There’s no other possible conclusion?” Think about this carefully.

What is finished?  What exactly did Christ mean when he said, “It is finished.” and how does anyone know for certain?

Did Jesus mean he had paid the full redemption price? Did he mean that the Father had poured out the fullness of his wrath against all sin – enough to exact a full payment for sin? Even if Christ meant that God had poured out the fullness of his wrath, does this mean no one could possibly experience the wrath of God, after the time of the cross? Did he mean that the Father had objectively justified the whole world and not even faith was necessary for salvation? Did he mean that the Father had objectively justified the whole world, but that faith was still necessary for salvation? Did Jesus mean that everything was completely accomplished and that everyone since the time of his death on the cross is in heaven…that this is it…the end has come and we’re all experiencing it? Did Jesus simply mean that it had been a long and brutal day and now his day (and his life) was coming to an end?

While some of these examples may be easily ruled out based on the context of the rest of Scripture, you hopefully get the point.

What exactly encompasses Jesus’ statement of completion. Did Jesus spell it out for us before he gave up his spirit and died? No. Did the apostles specifically comment on these words from the cross? No. How does anyone know precisely what exactly was included in the “completed” work of Christ, particularly since Christ is still at work in the world?

Proponents of UOJ would have us believe that “It is finished” very specifically refers to the whole work of the objective (yet, not the subjective) aspect of UOJ. Moreover, they would have us believe there is no other possibility, otherwise Christ’s words become invalid.

But, isn’t it ultimately completely arbitrary to try to attach a specific meaning to these words from the cross, and then conclude everything else falls outside of the realm of possibility and is therefore wrong?

Think about it.

That’s like my saying, “Universalism must be true because Jesus said ‘It is finished.’ To suggest that all people only come to have salvation and eternal life through faith, would mean that faith completes salvation and eternal life, which would invalidate Jesus’ words. Therefore, universalism must be true.” Of course, I don’t actually believe this, but by using the same logic as the proponent of UOJ, I could make this argument and declare it to be true.

How about a couple of other examples?

“If subjective justification were needed in order to lay hold of the benefits of objective justification, then subjective justification could not be true. Why? Because Jesus said, ‘It is finished.’”

Or, “If Christ said, ‘It is finished.’ then how could anyone come to have justification, forgiveness, eternal life, or…(fill in the blank) after his death on the cross, since he already said everything was completed?”

The point being, anyone could arbitrarily pick anything he wants in regard to matters of the Christian faith and say, if something comes after, then Christ’s words from the cross are invalid.

Did I mention arbitrary?

Scripture does not expressly define the exact details of the meaning behind Jesus’ words, “it if finished.” and therefore neither should we.

For me, it is enough to know that what Jesus meant was that everything necessary (whatever that may include) to please and to satisfy the Father, in regard to his incarnation as Savior, is complete.

He and the Father know all the ins and outs and the inner workings of all of the intimate, nitty-gritty details of the whole kit-and-caboodle…and have not shared it all with me.

Then…

Then, Jesus rose from the grave to prove it was so. And, I’m good with that!

I don’t need to know anything else, or to pretend that I do. And, anyone who proclaims to know more…well…I’ll let you complete that thought for yourself.

As for me, I am finished.

…well, with this particular analysis, not with the whole website or with the whole of my life. Oh, look…my “I am finished.” statement is still valid, even though it could have had any number of possible meanings. 😉

Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture, UOJ or JIC?

 

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

Question/Objection to UOJ:
Aren’t all people justified/forgiven through faith alone?

Defense for UOJ (Part 4 of 5):
If faith completes justification then forgiveness becomes potential rather than actual.

Analysis:
Elsewhere I asked, “What’s so bad about faith completing justification?” as a rhetorical question. Proponents of UOJ, however, do see a problem with faith completing justification. This is, of course, in light of their definition of what it means for faith to complete justification. Proponents of UOJ often argue that if justification is not already objectively true for all people, then forgiveness is not actual, but only potential forgiveness.

To that I have to say, what? Really? How does the forgiveness of God automatically become only potential rather than actual due to its being completed through faith? This is flawed logic from the get-go.

I mean, is there really no other option? Has God somehow become unfaithful or a liar? Can I somehow not rely on God, because he chooses to both apply and credit forgiveness to each person through faith and not before? I’m I really supposed to believe that forgiveness won (forgiveness which is acquired and available, but withheld) is somehow not valid or actual and that only forgiveness which has already been applied (realized) equates to actual forgiveness?

Besides, I’ve already demonstrated that JIC solves this supposed problem anyway. According to JIC, forgiveness is indeed actual and fully applied to Christ’s account, then distributed (applied and credited, if you will) to each individual account through faith. This, by itself, disproves the flawed logic which leads to the conclusion that UOJ has to be true, otherwise forgiveness must become only potential rather than actual.

I suspect the point that the UOJ proponent could ineffectively be trying to make, is this…if UOJ is not true, then how can anyone ever know for sure if he or she is actually forgiven? (Proponents of UOJ often speak of the comfort one can have from UOJ.) “How can anyone know that he has truly been forgiven if he was not already forgiven even before he believed it?” the proponent of UOJ might say.

But, this again, is flawed reasoning. Even if UOJ were true, it does nothing to solve this “uncertainty.” Why? Because according to UOJ, all are forgiven, yet not all receive the benefit of this forgiveness due to their unbelief. So, even when someone agrees with UOJ, he must still ultimately question whether or not he is one of those who is forgiven and yet still condemned (UOJ teaches someone can be both) or is he one who is forgiven and actually has eternal life. (See also: UOJ Defense B-3 The object of faith becomes faith.)

Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture, UOJ or JIC?

 

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

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?

 

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

Question/Objection to UOJ:
Aren’t all people justified/forgiven through faith alone?

Defense for UOJ (Parts 1 & 2 of 5):
1) Justification cannot be dependent upon man’s faith. 2) Otherwise, faith would then complete justification.

Analysis:
This defense has two distinct aspects I’d like to address, but each goes hand-in-hand with the other, so I’d like to address them together. We’ll look at them one-at-a-time.

1. Re: Forgiveness depends upon man’s faith – One thing I have noticed in my UOJ research is just how much proponents of UOJ will use very obscure arguments when defending their position, even to the point of seemingly denying their own theology (temporarily) to make their point. This UOJ defense is a prime example.

How so?

Right off the bat, this defense is a hoot.🤣 Any decent conservative Lutheran pastor, professor, etc. (in any other circumstance), would be quick to emphasize that the faith which a man has is a God-given gift, granted to him by the grace of God. Yet, with this defense, the proponent of UOJ is not-so-subtly implying that if forgiveness is dependent upon faith, then this equates to its being dependent upon man’s faith (emphasis on faith being man’s).

Further, by making this implication, the proponent of UOJ would seem to be further implying that since we, as good Lutherans, know that our forgiveness can never be dependent upon man, then UOJ must be true.

I’ve seen this sort of wording (referring to man’s faith) numerous times. The proponent of UOJ does not normally say, “…forgiveness would be dependent upon faith.” Rather, as already stated, it is most often stated as something like, “…forgiveness would be dependent upon man’s faith.”

Moreover, I have never once read or heard a proponent of UOJ say something like, “If UOJ were not true, then forgiveness would become dependent upon God’s gift of saving faith, and that would be very bad because…”

Hmmm. I wonder why? (You caught the sarcasm in that question, right?) This brings us to the second problem I have with this argument.

2. Re: Faith completes justification – What’s so bad about faith “completing” justification?

In one sense or another, both those who agree with UOJ as well as those who disagree with it, must admit (if they are honest) that there is a sense in which justification or forgiveness becomes completed, or more complete or more fulfilled (or, however you want to look at it) once faith has been granted. After all, even the proponent of UOJ insists upon a distinction between the objective and the subjective aspects of UOJ.  Let’s face it, something more (dare I say, “more complete”) happens with subjective justification which goes beyond the objective aspect of justification. Objective justification is, in a sense, missing something that subjective justification has in abundance…objective justification is less “complete” by comparison.

The proponent of UOJ may object, saying, “The only thing ‘missing’ from objective justification is faith…nothing more. And, faith does nothing more than simply receive that which is already offered in objective justification.” they might further conclude.

Really? Then, how does this applied (realized) justification (including forgiveness and righteousness) become a credited justification (forgiveness and righteousness) which then makes all of the difference in the world…er, umm…for eternity for the one receiving it, without “adding” something to the equation.  Something, in some way, shape or form becomes more completed…or, maybe that’s just me.

If this were not so; if something in some way were not becoming more complete, wouldn’t we ultimately be finding ourselves promoting universalism (all are saved, believer and unbeliever, alike)?

But even when we recognize that faith, in one way or another, completes forgiveness, the reality is that since God grants faith, this completion of forgiveness through faith is still all about the work of God through the grace of God. In other words, it is all fully dependent upon God, not man. So…what’s the problem?

The underlying suggestion or implication by the proponent of UOJ seems to be that if faith completes justification and forgiveness, it therefore becomes a meritorious work…faith does, rather than faith receives. Lutherans are big on understanding faith as (warning: fancy terminology coming…) the organon leptikon – the “receiving instrument.” To be clear, this means that faith only receives that which is offered in the gospel. It lays hold of the promises of God rather than doing anything.

In keeping with JIC, however, if justification has been fully applied to the account of Christ, then justification is complete already (according to a UOJ definition of what it means to be complete) and faith does not complete anything any more than the subjective aspect of UOJ does.

I don’t know about you, but whether or not we think of faith as completing justification, I am personally of the view that I will allow God to complete things as he will, rather than trying to tell him how he must go about completing things; or telling him how he must define completion of those things.

Maybe I’m just weird that way.

Which is more consistent with the testimony of Scripture, UOJ or JIC?

 

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs