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 2 - Analyzing the Defense of UOJ
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 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?
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?
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?
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?
Question/Objection to UOJ:
How can an unbeliever be forgiven, if the Bible says he’s condemned?
Defense for UOJ:
It comes down to a law/gospel distinction.
The argument suggests that passages which speak of the unbeliever’s condemnation are law passages, while those that teach UOJ are gospel passages. Understanding the distinction between law and gospel solves this apparent contradiction (according to UOJ).
But, is this true? Let’s investigate further to find out.
Analysis:
I’ve covered this in some detail in Category 1 (questions 4 & 5). I really don’t have anything more to add here, but have copied the text from question 5 here (Ensure updated copy is place below once proof-reading has been done), for your convenience:
[ 5 ] Does the gospel withheld disprove UOJ?
Truth or Fine Sounding Argumentation?
One way in which proponents of UOJ attempt to overcome the objections associated with the fact that Scripture clearly states that unbelievers stand condemned under God’s wrath is by making the claim that there is a law/gospel distinction being made between God’s condemnation and God’s forgiveness as explained by UOJ.
According to this line of thinking, it is simply a matter of the law when we understand that unbelievers stand condemned by God. By contrast, it is a matter of the gospel (so it is taught) to understand that these same unbelievers have God’s forgiveness applied to their lives. The two teachings, though seemingly contradictory (according to the proponent of UOJ) can still coexist nicely, once we understand this law/gospel distinction.
~ Col 2:4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.
While this may be a fine-sounding argument, I would suggest that it is a hollow and deceptive philosophy which has been imposed upon the text of Scripture rather than pulled from the text.
~ Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Why do I think this is just a fine sounding argument? What about those times when Scripture fails to speak in terms of the unbeliever’s condemnation under the law, but instead, speaks of the gospel being withheld?
More of The Same?
I’ve touched on the concept of “the gospel withheld” in a couple of other Q & A’s, but I believe this deserves its own Q & A, so we can dig into it in more detail.
Quite simply, the gospel withheld, by itself, disproves UOJ.
To be clear, those passages which speak of wrath and condemnation before a holy God, can indeed, rightly be considered law passages, while those passages which speak of justification, forgiveness and righteousness can also rightly be considered gospel passages.
If what I have just said is true, then what’s the problem?
Here it is. The law and the gospel do not…cannot…apply equally to the same person at the same time.
Under Law or Grace?
When we look at the whole of Scripture and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we come to realize that the believer is no longer under the law, but under grace. The law no longer applies to him in the same way that it did when he was an unbeliever.
~ Ro 6:14 [Speaking to those who have been brought from death to life – i.e. believers] For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
The flip side is also true – the unbeliever is not under grace (in a legal sense), rather he is exclusively under the law. Yes, God bestows some measure of grace on all of creation, but we are not speaking of that, here. We are speaking of God’s grace in a forensic (legal) sense in regards to God’s eternal judgement, specifically in regard to justification, forgiveness and righteousness. In this sense, the unbeliever is not under God’s grace, he is exclusively under the law.
~ Ro 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
The long and the short of it is that those passages which speak of the unbeliever’s condemnation and wrath are specifically statements of condemnation and wrath, under the law.
Moreover, those passages which speak of the believer as having received God’s justification, forgiveness and righteousness are specifically statements of gospel, to those under God’s grace.
Distinction or Blending?
To say that the unbeliever is both condemned and forgiven at the same time is not a distinction between law and gospel, but a blending of law and gospel. It is equivalent to saying that the unbeliever is both under the law and under grace at the same time.
If we are going to use a law/gospel argument, let’s use the law and the gospel correctly (and fully) without blending the two together. Any good Lutheran knows that we should always be careful to use the law and the gospel correctly, including the fact that we should never mix the two together.
But wait…there’s more!
Scripture not only speaks of the unbeliever as standing under God’s wrath and condemnation, but it also speaks specifically of the gospel being withheld from him. In other words, Scripture not only speaks of the law condemning the unbeliever, but at the other end of the spectrum (or on the other side of the coin, if you will) of his NOT being forgiving by the gospel.
I’m no rocket scientist, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the gospel cannot rightly be said to be fully applied (though not credited) and to be fully withheld at the same time.
Again, to be clear, I am not speaking of wrath and condemnation passages, here. I am speaking of gospel withheld passages. There is an important distinction to be made between the two.
Proofs of Gospel Withheld
Let’s take a look at a few passages which specifically speak of the gospel being withheld.
We’ll begin in the Old Testament. An argument could be made that these OT passages do not apply to those in the NT era. I would encourage you to look them up for yourself in their broader context to see if any of these are exclusively for the people of the OT or whether some (or all) are intended to be understood in an ongoing sense.
Moreover, UOJ teaches that God’s forgiveness is essentially retroactive, meaning it not only applies from the cross (or empty tomb, as the case may be) forward, but goes all the way back to creation. So, if you want to argue that these OT passages do not apply, you’ll have to factor this retroactive application into your thinking as you try to wrap your head around the problems with UOJ.
OT Passages:
~ Deut 29:19-20 When such a person hears the words of this oath, he invokes a blessing on himself and therefore thinks, “I will be safe, even though I persist in going my own way.” This will bring disaster on the watered land as well as the dry. The LORD will never be willing to forgive him; his wrath and zeal will burn against that man. All the curses written in this book will fall upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven.
This chapter ends with these words from verse 29 (see, I’ve done some of the context homework for you…you’re welcome :-):
~ “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”
So, what do you think? Could this entire OT passage (verses 19-29) include those of us in the NT era?
Next…
~ Ex 23:20-21 “See, I am sending an angel [Many would say this angel (messenger) is Christ] ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.
~ Num 14:18 The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty…
Notice this last verse (Num 14:18) is clearly speaking of God’s slowness to anger and of his abounding and steadfast love as expressed in forgiveness. Yet, even though it speaks of the wonders of God’s love and forgiveness, his abounding love is not bound-less love. His love has boundaries which coincide with his justice and holiness. God will not clear (gospel) the guilty (law).
Did you catch the significance of this verse. If any verse in all of Scripture has potential for being a perfect UOJ proof, the first part of this verse would lead us to believe that this is it!
UOJ assumes God’s love, as expressed through forgiveness, is boundless. Yet, though this verse speaks of God’s abounding love, expressed through forgiveness, it also does that which the rest of Scripture consistently does, it refuses to result in UOJ. The second portion of the verse goes out of its way to explain the whole truth of the matter. Namely, that God’s love, expressed through forgiveness, though abounding is not boundless.
For God’s wrath and judgement remain for the guilty. The guilty have no part in the forgiveness of the first part of the verse. The guilty are not cleared of their guilt as the second part of the verse states. Finally, the guilty are not the guilt free, but remain the guilty as the second part also states.
In short, the gospel is withheld from them.
Let’s move on the the New Testament.
NT Passages:
~ Mt 6:14-15 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
~ Jn 20:23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
~ Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.
~ Mt 12:32 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.
Conclusion
As you can hopefully see from the above passages, the unbeliever’s condemnation before God is more than a matter of a law/gospel distinction. Scripture not only informs us that the unbeliever is condemned under the law, but, in keeping with the testimony of Scripture, he is not forgiven either.
While these two sides of the same truth ought to be self evident, UOJ attempts to confuse the issue by claiming a supposed law/gospel distinction which is ultimately a blending of law and gospel (rather than a distinction between the two) as explained above.
What it comes down to is this: The word of God very clear states that those who do not find themselves among the made-new children of God remain unforgiven, while the words of men claim (contrary to God) that these same unbelievers are forgiven. Bearing in mind that I have attempted to demonstrate (under the 3rd category tab, “UOJ Proof Passages”) UOJ has never legitimately (in context) been proved from Scripture, in the first place.
Either you believe our God of order, has both forgiven and not forgiven the unbeliever at the same time, or you (at the very least) are willing to question the idea…if not forsake it altogether.
If enough people question it, maybe Lutheran theologians will eventually feel compelled to legitimately discuss and debate…including actually listening to and considering an alternative (more biblical) view.
As for me, I have to conclude that God said what he meant and meant what he said…”not forgiven” means not forgiven, rather than meaning not forgiven and also forgiven. Call me crazy.
The gospel withheld, by itself, disproves UOJ.
Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments), 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 2 - Analyzing the Defense of UOJ
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 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?
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?
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?
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?
Question/Objection to UOJ:
How can an unbeliever be forgiven, if the Bible says he’s condemned?
Defense for UOJ:
It comes down to a law/gospel distinction.
The argument suggests that passages which speak of the unbeliever’s condemnation are law passages, while those that teach UOJ are gospel passages. Understanding the distinction between law and gospel solves this apparent contradiction (according to UOJ).
But, is this true? Let’s investigate further to find out.
Analysis:
I’ve covered this in some detail in Category 1 (questions 4 & 5). I really don’t have anything more to add here, but have copied the text from question 5 here (Ensure updated copy is place below once proof-reading has been done), for your convenience:
[ 5 ] Does the gospel withheld disprove UOJ?
Truth or Fine Sounding Argumentation?
One way in which proponents of UOJ attempt to overcome the objections associated with the fact that Scripture clearly states that unbelievers stand condemned under God’s wrath is by making the claim that there is a law/gospel distinction being made between God’s condemnation and God’s forgiveness as explained by UOJ.
According to this line of thinking, it is simply a matter of the law when we understand that unbelievers stand condemned by God. By contrast, it is a matter of the gospel (so it is taught) to understand that these same unbelievers have God’s forgiveness applied to their lives. The two teachings, though seemingly contradictory (according to the proponent of UOJ) can still coexist nicely, once we understand this law/gospel distinction.
~ Col 2:4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.
While this may be a fine-sounding argument, I would suggest that it is a hollow and deceptive philosophy which has been imposed upon the text of Scripture rather than pulled from the text.
~ Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Why do I think this is just a fine sounding argument? What about those times when Scripture fails to speak in terms of the unbeliever’s condemnation under the law, but instead, speaks of the gospel being withheld?
More of The Same?
I’ve touched on the concept of “the gospel withheld” in a couple of other Q & A’s, but I believe this deserves its own Q & A, so we can dig into it in more detail.
Quite simply, the gospel withheld, by itself, disproves UOJ.
To be clear, those passages which speak of wrath and condemnation before a holy God, can indeed, rightly be considered law passages, while those passages which speak of justification, forgiveness and righteousness can also rightly be considered gospel passages.
If what I have just said is true, then what’s the problem?
Here it is. The law and the gospel do not…cannot…apply equally to the same person at the same time.
Under Law or Grace?
When we look at the whole of Scripture and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we come to realize that the believer is no longer under the law, but under grace. The law no longer applies to him in the same way that it did when he was an unbeliever.
~ Ro 6:14 [Speaking to those who have been brought from death to life – i.e. believers] For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
The flip side is also true – the unbeliever is not under grace (in a legal sense), rather he is exclusively under the law. Yes, God bestows some measure of grace on all of creation, but we are not speaking of that, here. We are speaking of God’s grace in a forensic (legal) sense in regards to God’s eternal judgement, specifically in regard to justification, forgiveness and righteousness. In this sense, the unbeliever is not under God’s grace, he is exclusively under the law.
~ Ro 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
The long and the short of it is that those passages which speak of the unbeliever’s condemnation and wrath are specifically statements of condemnation and wrath, under the law.
Moreover, those passages which speak of the believer as having received God’s justification, forgiveness and righteousness are specifically statements of gospel, to those under God’s grace.
Distinction or Blending?
To say that the unbeliever is both condemned and forgiven at the same time is not a distinction between law and gospel, but a blending of law and gospel. It is equivalent to saying that the unbeliever is both under the law and under grace at the same time.
If we are going to use a law/gospel argument, let’s use the law and the gospel correctly (and fully) without blending the two together. Any good Lutheran knows that we should always be careful to use the law and the gospel correctly, including the fact that we should never mix the two together.
But wait…there’s more!
Scripture not only speaks of the unbeliever as standing under God’s wrath and condemnation, but it also speaks specifically of the gospel being withheld from him. In other words, Scripture not only speaks of the law condemning the unbeliever, but at the other end of the spectrum (or on the other side of the coin, if you will) of his NOT being forgiving by the gospel.
I’m no rocket scientist, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the gospel cannot rightly be said to be fully applied (though not credited) and to be fully withheld at the same time.
Again, to be clear, I am not speaking of wrath and condemnation passages, here. I am speaking of gospel withheld passages. There is an important distinction to be made between the two.
Proofs of Gospel Withheld
Let’s take a look at a few passages which specifically speak of the gospel being withheld.
We’ll begin in the Old Testament. An argument could be made that these OT passages do not apply to those in the NT era. I would encourage you to look them up for yourself in their broader context to see if any of these are exclusively for the people of the OT or whether some (or all) are intended to be understood in an ongoing sense.
Moreover, UOJ teaches that God’s forgiveness is essentially retroactive, meaning it not only applies from the cross (or empty tomb, as the case may be) forward, but goes all the way back to creation. So, if you want to argue that these OT passages do not apply, you’ll have to factor this retroactive application into your thinking as you try to wrap your head around the problems with UOJ.
OT Passages:
~ Deut 29:19-20 When such a person hears the words of this oath, he invokes a blessing on himself and therefore thinks, “I will be safe, even though I persist in going my own way.” This will bring disaster on the watered land as well as the dry. The LORD will never be willing to forgive him; his wrath and zeal will burn against that man. All the curses written in this book will fall upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven.
This chapter ends with these words from verse 29 (see, I’ve done some of the context homework for you…you’re welcome :-):
~ “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”
So, what do you think? Could this entire OT passage (verses 19-29) include those of us in the NT era?
Next…
~ Ex 23:20-21 “See, I am sending an angel [Many would say this angel (messenger) is Christ] ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.
~ Num 14:18 The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty…
Notice this last verse (Num 14:18) is clearly speaking of God’s slowness to anger and of his abounding and steadfast love as expressed in forgiveness. Yet, even though it speaks of the wonders of God’s love and forgiveness, his abounding love is not bound-less love. His love has boundaries which coincide with his justice and holiness. God will not clear (gospel) the guilty (law).
Did you catch the significance of this verse. If any verse in all of Scripture has potential for being a perfect UOJ proof, the first part of this verse would lead us to believe that this is it!
UOJ assumes God’s love, as expressed through forgiveness, is boundless. Yet, though this verse speaks of God’s abounding love, expressed through forgiveness, it also does that which the rest of Scripture consistently does, it refuses to result in UOJ. The second portion of the verse goes out of its way to explain the whole truth of the matter. Namely, that God’s love, expressed through forgiveness, though abounding is not boundless.
For God’s wrath and judgement remain for the guilty. The guilty have no part in the forgiveness of the first part of the verse. The guilty are not cleared of their guilt as the second part of the verse states. Finally, the guilty are not the guilt free, but remain the guilty as the second part also states.
In short, the gospel is withheld from them.
Let’s move on the the New Testament.
NT Passages:
~ Mt 6:14-15 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
~ Jn 20:23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
~ Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.
~ Mt 12:32 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.
Conclusion
As you can hopefully see from the above passages, the unbeliever’s condemnation before God is more than a matter of a law/gospel distinction. Scripture not only informs us that the unbeliever is condemned under the law, but, in keeping with the testimony of Scripture, he is not forgiven either.
While these two sides of the same truth ought to be self evident, UOJ attempts to confuse the issue by claiming a supposed law/gospel distinction which is ultimately a blending of law and gospel (rather than a distinction between the two) as explained above.
What it comes down to is this: The word of God very clear states that those who do not find themselves among the made-new children of God remain unforgiven, while the words of men claim (contrary to God) that these same unbelievers are forgiven. Bearing in mind that I have attempted to demonstrate (under the 3rd category tab, “UOJ Proof Passages”) UOJ has never legitimately (in context) been proved from Scripture, in the first place.
Either you believe our God of order, has both forgiven and not forgiven the unbeliever at the same time, or you (at the very least) are willing to question the idea…if not forsake it altogether.
If enough people question it, maybe Lutheran theologians will eventually feel compelled to legitimately discuss and debate…including actually listening to and considering an alternative (more biblical) view.
As for me, I have to conclude that God said what he meant and meant what he said…”not forgiven” means not forgiven, rather than meaning not forgiven and also forgiven. Call me crazy.
The gospel withheld, by itself, disproves UOJ.
Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments), UOJ or JIC?
Category 2 - Analyzing the Defense of UOJ
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 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?
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?
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?
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?
Question/Objection to UOJ:
How can an unbeliever be forgiven, if the Bible says he’s condemned?
Defense for UOJ:
It comes down to a law/gospel distinction.
The argument suggests that passages which speak of the unbeliever’s condemnation are law passages, while those that teach UOJ are gospel passages. Understanding the distinction between law and gospel solves this apparent contradiction (according to UOJ).
But, is this true? Let’s investigate further to find out.
Analysis:
I’ve covered this in some detail in Category 1 (questions 4 & 5). I really don’t have anything more to add here, but have copied the text from question 5 here (Ensure updated copy is place below once proof-reading has been done), for your convenience:
[ 5 ] Does the gospel withheld disprove UOJ?
Truth or Fine Sounding Argumentation?
One way in which proponents of UOJ attempt to overcome the objections associated with the fact that Scripture clearly states that unbelievers stand condemned under God’s wrath is by making the claim that there is a law/gospel distinction being made between God’s condemnation and God’s forgiveness as explained by UOJ.
According to this line of thinking, it is simply a matter of the law when we understand that unbelievers stand condemned by God. By contrast, it is a matter of the gospel (so it is taught) to understand that these same unbelievers have God’s forgiveness applied to their lives. The two teachings, though seemingly contradictory (according to the proponent of UOJ) can still coexist nicely, once we understand this law/gospel distinction.
~ Col 2:4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.
While this may be a fine-sounding argument, I would suggest that it is a hollow and deceptive philosophy which has been imposed upon the text of Scripture rather than pulled from the text.
~ Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Why do I think this is just a fine sounding argument? What about those times when Scripture fails to speak in terms of the unbeliever’s condemnation under the law, but instead, speaks of the gospel being withheld?
More of The Same?
I’ve touched on the concept of “the gospel withheld” in a couple of other Q & A’s, but I believe this deserves its own Q & A, so we can dig into it in more detail.
Quite simply, the gospel withheld, by itself, disproves UOJ.
To be clear, those passages which speak of wrath and condemnation before a holy God, can indeed, rightly be considered law passages, while those passages which speak of justification, forgiveness and righteousness can also rightly be considered gospel passages.
If what I have just said is true, then what’s the problem?
Here it is. The law and the gospel do not…cannot…apply equally to the same person at the same time.
Under Law or Grace?
When we look at the whole of Scripture and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we come to realize that the believer is no longer under the law, but under grace. The law no longer applies to him in the same way that it did when he was an unbeliever.
~ Ro 6:14 [Speaking to those who have been brought from death to life – i.e. believers] For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
The flip side is also true – the unbeliever is not under grace (in a legal sense), rather he is exclusively under the law. Yes, God bestows some measure of grace on all of creation, but we are not speaking of that, here. We are speaking of God’s grace in a forensic (legal) sense in regards to God’s eternal judgement, specifically in regard to justification, forgiveness and righteousness. In this sense, the unbeliever is not under God’s grace, he is exclusively under the law.
~ Ro 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
The long and the short of it is that those passages which speak of the unbeliever’s condemnation and wrath are specifically statements of condemnation and wrath, under the law.
Moreover, those passages which speak of the believer as having received God’s justification, forgiveness and righteousness are specifically statements of gospel, to those under God’s grace.
Distinction or Blending?
To say that the unbeliever is both condemned and forgiven at the same time is not a distinction between law and gospel, but a blending of law and gospel. It is equivalent to saying that the unbeliever is both under the law and under grace at the same time.
If we are going to use a law/gospel argument, let’s use the law and the gospel correctly (and fully) without blending the two together. Any good Lutheran knows that we should always be careful to use the law and the gospel correctly, including the fact that we should never mix the two together.
But wait…there’s more!
Scripture not only speaks of the unbeliever as standing under God’s wrath and condemnation, but it also speaks specifically of the gospel being withheld from him. In other words, Scripture not only speaks of the law condemning the unbeliever, but at the other end of the spectrum (or on the other side of the coin, if you will) of his NOT being forgiving by the gospel.
I’m no rocket scientist, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the gospel cannot rightly be said to be fully applied (though not credited) and to be fully withheld at the same time.
Again, to be clear, I am not speaking of wrath and condemnation passages, here. I am speaking of gospel withheld passages. There is an important distinction to be made between the two.
Proofs of Gospel Withheld
Let’s take a look at a few passages which specifically speak of the gospel being withheld.
We’ll begin in the Old Testament. An argument could be made that these OT passages do not apply to those in the NT era. I would encourage you to look them up for yourself in their broader context to see if any of these are exclusively for the people of the OT or whether some (or all) are intended to be understood in an ongoing sense.
Moreover, UOJ teaches that God’s forgiveness is essentially retroactive, meaning it not only applies from the cross (or empty tomb, as the case may be) forward, but goes all the way back to creation. So, if you want to argue that these OT passages do not apply, you’ll have to factor this retroactive application into your thinking as you try to wrap your head around the problems with UOJ.
OT Passages:
~ Deut 29:19-20 When such a person hears the words of this oath, he invokes a blessing on himself and therefore thinks, “I will be safe, even though I persist in going my own way.” This will bring disaster on the watered land as well as the dry. The LORD will never be willing to forgive him; his wrath and zeal will burn against that man. All the curses written in this book will fall upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven.
This chapter ends with these words from verse 29 (see, I’ve done some of the context homework for you…you’re welcome :-):
~ “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”
So, what do you think? Could this entire OT passage (verses 19-29) include those of us in the NT era?
Next…
~ Ex 23:20-21 “See, I am sending an angel [Many would say this angel (messenger) is Christ] ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.
~ Num 14:18 The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty…
Notice this last verse (Num 14:18) is clearly speaking of God’s slowness to anger and of his abounding and steadfast love as expressed in forgiveness. Yet, even though it speaks of the wonders of God’s love and forgiveness, his abounding love is not bound-less love. His love has boundaries which coincide with his justice and holiness. God will not clear (gospel) the guilty (law).
Did you catch the significance of this verse. If any verse in all of Scripture has potential for being a perfect UOJ proof, the first part of this verse would lead us to believe that this is it!
UOJ assumes God’s love, as expressed through forgiveness, is boundless. Yet, though this verse speaks of God’s abounding love, expressed through forgiveness, it also does that which the rest of Scripture consistently does, it refuses to result in UOJ. The second portion of the verse goes out of its way to explain the whole truth of the matter. Namely, that God’s love, expressed through forgiveness, though abounding is not boundless.
For God’s wrath and judgement remain for the guilty. The guilty have no part in the forgiveness of the first part of the verse. The guilty are not cleared of their guilt as the second part of the verse states. Finally, the guilty are not the guilt free, but remain the guilty as the second part also states.
In short, the gospel is withheld from them.
Let’s move on the the New Testament.
NT Passages:
~ Mt 6:14-15 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
~ Jn 20:23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
~ Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.
~ Mt 12:32 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.
Conclusion
As you can hopefully see from the above passages, the unbeliever’s condemnation before God is more than a matter of a law/gospel distinction. Scripture not only informs us that the unbeliever is condemned under the law, but, in keeping with the testimony of Scripture, he is not forgiven either.
While these two sides of the same truth ought to be self evident, UOJ attempts to confuse the issue by claiming a supposed law/gospel distinction which is ultimately a blending of law and gospel (rather than a distinction between the two) as explained above.
What it comes down to is this: The word of God very clear states that those who do not find themselves among the made-new children of God remain unforgiven, while the words of men claim (contrary to God) that these same unbelievers are forgiven. Bearing in mind that I have attempted to demonstrate (under the 3rd category tab, “UOJ Proof Passages”) UOJ has never legitimately (in context) been proved from Scripture, in the first place.
Either you believe our God of order, has both forgiven and not forgiven the unbeliever at the same time, or you (at the very least) are willing to question the idea…if not forsake it altogether.
If enough people question it, maybe Lutheran theologians will eventually feel compelled to legitimately discuss and debate…including actually listening to and considering an alternative (more biblical) view.
As for me, I have to conclude that God said what he meant and meant what he said…”not forgiven” means not forgiven, rather than meaning not forgiven and also forgiven. Call me crazy.
The gospel withheld, by itself, disproves UOJ.
Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments), UOJ or JIC?
Category 2 - Analyzing the Defense of UOJ
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 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?
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?
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?
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?
Question/Objection to UOJ:
How can an unbeliever be forgiven, if the Bible says he’s condemned?
Defense for UOJ:
It comes down to a law/gospel distinction.
The argument suggests that passages which speak of the unbeliever’s condemnation are law passages, while those that teach UOJ are gospel passages. Understanding the distinction between law and gospel solves this apparent contradiction (according to UOJ).
But, is this true? Let’s investigate further to find out.
Analysis:
I’ve covered this in some detail in Category 1 (questions 4 & 5). I really don’t have anything more to add here, but have copied the text from question 5 here (Ensure updated copy is place below once proof-reading has been done), for your convenience:
[ 5 ] Does the gospel withheld disprove UOJ?
Truth or Fine Sounding Argumentation?
One way in which proponents of UOJ attempt to overcome the objections associated with the fact that Scripture clearly states that unbelievers stand condemned under God’s wrath is by making the claim that there is a law/gospel distinction being made between God’s condemnation and God’s forgiveness as explained by UOJ.
According to this line of thinking, it is simply a matter of the law when we understand that unbelievers stand condemned by God. By contrast, it is a matter of the gospel (so it is taught) to understand that these same unbelievers have God’s forgiveness applied to their lives. The two teachings, though seemingly contradictory (according to the proponent of UOJ) can still coexist nicely, once we understand this law/gospel distinction.
~ Col 2:4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.
While this may be a fine-sounding argument, I would suggest that it is a hollow and deceptive philosophy which has been imposed upon the text of Scripture rather than pulled from the text.
~ Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Why do I think this is just a fine sounding argument? What about those times when Scripture fails to speak in terms of the unbeliever’s condemnation under the law, but instead, speaks of the gospel being withheld?
More of The Same?
I’ve touched on the concept of “the gospel withheld” in a couple of other Q & A’s, but I believe this deserves its own Q & A, so we can dig into it in more detail.
Quite simply, the gospel withheld, by itself, disproves UOJ.
To be clear, those passages which speak of wrath and condemnation before a holy God, can indeed, rightly be considered law passages, while those passages which speak of justification, forgiveness and righteousness can also rightly be considered gospel passages.
If what I have just said is true, then what’s the problem?
Here it is. The law and the gospel do not…cannot…apply equally to the same person at the same time.
Under Law or Grace?
When we look at the whole of Scripture and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we come to realize that the believer is no longer under the law, but under grace. The law no longer applies to him in the same way that it did when he was an unbeliever.
~ Ro 6:14 [Speaking to those who have been brought from death to life – i.e. believers] For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
The flip side is also true – the unbeliever is not under grace (in a legal sense), rather he is exclusively under the law. Yes, God bestows some measure of grace on all of creation, but we are not speaking of that, here. We are speaking of God’s grace in a forensic (legal) sense in regards to God’s eternal judgement, specifically in regard to justification, forgiveness and righteousness. In this sense, the unbeliever is not under God’s grace, he is exclusively under the law.
~ Ro 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
The long and the short of it is that those passages which speak of the unbeliever’s condemnation and wrath are specifically statements of condemnation and wrath, under the law.
Moreover, those passages which speak of the believer as having received God’s justification, forgiveness and righteousness are specifically statements of gospel, to those under God’s grace.
Distinction or Blending?
To say that the unbeliever is both condemned and forgiven at the same time is not a distinction between law and gospel, but a blending of law and gospel. It is equivalent to saying that the unbeliever is both under the law and under grace at the same time.
If we are going to use a law/gospel argument, let’s use the law and the gospel correctly (and fully) without blending the two together. Any good Lutheran knows that we should always be careful to use the law and the gospel correctly, including the fact that we should never mix the two together.
But wait…there’s more!
Scripture not only speaks of the unbeliever as standing under God’s wrath and condemnation, but it also speaks specifically of the gospel being withheld from him. In other words, Scripture not only speaks of the law condemning the unbeliever, but at the other end of the spectrum (or on the other side of the coin, if you will) of his NOT being forgiving by the gospel.
I’m no rocket scientist, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the gospel cannot rightly be said to be fully applied (though not credited) and to be fully withheld at the same time.
Again, to be clear, I am not speaking of wrath and condemnation passages, here. I am speaking of gospel withheld passages. There is an important distinction to be made between the two.
Proofs of Gospel Withheld
Let’s take a look at a few passages which specifically speak of the gospel being withheld.
We’ll begin in the Old Testament. An argument could be made that these OT passages do not apply to those in the NT era. I would encourage you to look them up for yourself in their broader context to see if any of these are exclusively for the people of the OT or whether some (or all) are intended to be understood in an ongoing sense.
Moreover, UOJ teaches that God’s forgiveness is essentially retroactive, meaning it not only applies from the cross (or empty tomb, as the case may be) forward, but goes all the way back to creation. So, if you want to argue that these OT passages do not apply, you’ll have to factor this retroactive application into your thinking as you try to wrap your head around the problems with UOJ.
OT Passages:
~ Deut 29:19-20 When such a person hears the words of this oath, he invokes a blessing on himself and therefore thinks, “I will be safe, even though I persist in going my own way.” This will bring disaster on the watered land as well as the dry. The LORD will never be willing to forgive him; his wrath and zeal will burn against that man. All the curses written in this book will fall upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven.
This chapter ends with these words from verse 29 (see, I’ve done some of the context homework for you…you’re welcome :-):
~ “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”
So, what do you think? Could this entire OT passage (verses 19-29) include those of us in the NT era?
Next…
~ Ex 23:20-21 “See, I am sending an angel [Many would say this angel (messenger) is Christ] ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.
~ Num 14:18 The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty…
Notice this last verse (Num 14:18) is clearly speaking of God’s slowness to anger and of his abounding and steadfast love as expressed in forgiveness. Yet, even though it speaks of the wonders of God’s love and forgiveness, his abounding love is not bound-less love. His love has boundaries which coincide with his justice and holiness. God will not clear (gospel) the guilty (law).
Did you catch the significance of this verse. If any verse in all of Scripture has potential for being a perfect UOJ proof, the first part of this verse would lead us to believe that this is it!
UOJ assumes God’s love, as expressed through forgiveness, is boundless. Yet, though this verse speaks of God’s abounding love, expressed through forgiveness, it also does that which the rest of Scripture consistently does, it refuses to result in UOJ. The second portion of the verse goes out of its way to explain the whole truth of the matter. Namely, that God’s love, expressed through forgiveness, though abounding is not boundless.
For God’s wrath and judgement remain for the guilty. The guilty have no part in the forgiveness of the first part of the verse. The guilty are not cleared of their guilt as the second part of the verse states. Finally, the guilty are not the guilt free, but remain the guilty as the second part also states.
In short, the gospel is withheld from them.
Let’s move on the the New Testament.
NT Passages:
~ Mt 6:14-15 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
~ Jn 20:23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
~ Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.
~ Mt 12:32 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.
Conclusion
As you can hopefully see from the above passages, the unbeliever’s condemnation before God is more than a matter of a law/gospel distinction. Scripture not only informs us that the unbeliever is condemned under the law, but, in keeping with the testimony of Scripture, he is not forgiven either.
While these two sides of the same truth ought to be self evident, UOJ attempts to confuse the issue by claiming a supposed law/gospel distinction which is ultimately a blending of law and gospel (rather than a distinction between the two) as explained above.
What it comes down to is this: The word of God very clear states that those who do not find themselves among the made-new children of God remain unforgiven, while the words of men claim (contrary to God) that these same unbelievers are forgiven. Bearing in mind that I have attempted to demonstrate (under the 3rd category tab, “UOJ Proof Passages”) UOJ has never legitimately (in context) been proved from Scripture, in the first place.
Either you believe our God of order, has both forgiven and not forgiven the unbeliever at the same time, or you (at the very least) are willing to question the idea…if not forsake it altogether.
If enough people question it, maybe Lutheran theologians will eventually feel compelled to legitimately discuss and debate…including actually listening to and considering an alternative (more biblical) view.
As for me, I have to conclude that God said what he meant and meant what he said…”not forgiven” means not forgiven, rather than meaning not forgiven and also forgiven. Call me crazy.
The gospel withheld, by itself, disproves UOJ.
Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments), UOJ or JIC?
Category 2 - Analyzing the Defense of UOJ
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 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?
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?
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?
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?
Question/Objection to UOJ:
How can an unbeliever be forgiven, if the Bible says he’s condemned?
Defense for UOJ:
It comes down to a law/gospel distinction.
The argument suggests that passages which speak of the unbeliever’s condemnation are law passages, while those that teach UOJ are gospel passages. Understanding the distinction between law and gospel solves this apparent contradiction (according to UOJ).
But, is this true? Let’s investigate further to find out.
Analysis:
I’ve covered this in some detail in Category 1 (questions 4 & 5). I really don’t have anything more to add here, but have copied the text from question 5 here (Ensure updated copy is place below once proof-reading has been done), for your convenience:
[ 5 ] Does the gospel withheld disprove UOJ?
Truth or Fine Sounding Argumentation?
One way in which proponents of UOJ attempt to overcome the objections associated with the fact that Scripture clearly states that unbelievers stand condemned under God’s wrath is by making the claim that there is a law/gospel distinction being made between God’s condemnation and God’s forgiveness as explained by UOJ.
According to this line of thinking, it is simply a matter of the law when we understand that unbelievers stand condemned by God. By contrast, it is a matter of the gospel (so it is taught) to understand that these same unbelievers have God’s forgiveness applied to their lives. The two teachings, though seemingly contradictory (according to the proponent of UOJ) can still coexist nicely, once we understand this law/gospel distinction.
~ Col 2:4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.
While this may be a fine-sounding argument, I would suggest that it is a hollow and deceptive philosophy which has been imposed upon the text of Scripture rather than pulled from the text.
~ Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Why do I think this is just a fine sounding argument? What about those times when Scripture fails to speak in terms of the unbeliever’s condemnation under the law, but instead, speaks of the gospel being withheld?
More of The Same?
I’ve touched on the concept of “the gospel withheld” in a couple of other Q & A’s, but I believe this deserves its own Q & A, so we can dig into it in more detail.
Quite simply, the gospel withheld, by itself, disproves UOJ.
To be clear, those passages which speak of wrath and condemnation before a holy God, can indeed, rightly be considered law passages, while those passages which speak of justification, forgiveness and righteousness can also rightly be considered gospel passages.
If what I have just said is true, then what’s the problem?
Here it is. The law and the gospel do not…cannot…apply equally to the same person at the same time.
Under Law or Grace?
When we look at the whole of Scripture and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we come to realize that the believer is no longer under the law, but under grace. The law no longer applies to him in the same way that it did when he was an unbeliever.
~ Ro 6:14 [Speaking to those who have been brought from death to life – i.e. believers] For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
The flip side is also true – the unbeliever is not under grace (in a legal sense), rather he is exclusively under the law. Yes, God bestows some measure of grace on all of creation, but we are not speaking of that, here. We are speaking of God’s grace in a forensic (legal) sense in regards to God’s eternal judgement, specifically in regard to justification, forgiveness and righteousness. In this sense, the unbeliever is not under God’s grace, he is exclusively under the law.
~ Ro 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
The long and the short of it is that those passages which speak of the unbeliever’s condemnation and wrath are specifically statements of condemnation and wrath, under the law.
Moreover, those passages which speak of the believer as having received God’s justification, forgiveness and righteousness are specifically statements of gospel, to those under God’s grace.
Distinction or Blending?
To say that the unbeliever is both condemned and forgiven at the same time is not a distinction between law and gospel, but a blending of law and gospel. It is equivalent to saying that the unbeliever is both under the law and under grace at the same time.
If we are going to use a law/gospel argument, let’s use the law and the gospel correctly (and fully) without blending the two together. Any good Lutheran knows that we should always be careful to use the law and the gospel correctly, including the fact that we should never mix the two together.
But wait…there’s more!
Scripture not only speaks of the unbeliever as standing under God’s wrath and condemnation, but it also speaks specifically of the gospel being withheld from him. In other words, Scripture not only speaks of the law condemning the unbeliever, but at the other end of the spectrum (or on the other side of the coin, if you will) of his NOT being forgiving by the gospel.
I’m no rocket scientist, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the gospel cannot rightly be said to be fully applied (though not credited) and to be fully withheld at the same time.
Again, to be clear, I am not speaking of wrath and condemnation passages, here. I am speaking of gospel withheld passages. There is an important distinction to be made between the two.
Proofs of Gospel Withheld
Let’s take a look at a few passages which specifically speak of the gospel being withheld.
We’ll begin in the Old Testament. An argument could be made that these OT passages do not apply to those in the NT era. I would encourage you to look them up for yourself in their broader context to see if any of these are exclusively for the people of the OT or whether some (or all) are intended to be understood in an ongoing sense.
Moreover, UOJ teaches that God’s forgiveness is essentially retroactive, meaning it not only applies from the cross (or empty tomb, as the case may be) forward, but goes all the way back to creation. So, if you want to argue that these OT passages do not apply, you’ll have to factor this retroactive application into your thinking as you try to wrap your head around the problems with UOJ.
OT Passages:
~ Deut 29:19-20 When such a person hears the words of this oath, he invokes a blessing on himself and therefore thinks, “I will be safe, even though I persist in going my own way.” This will bring disaster on the watered land as well as the dry. The LORD will never be willing to forgive him; his wrath and zeal will burn against that man. All the curses written in this book will fall upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven.
This chapter ends with these words from verse 29 (see, I’ve done some of the context homework for you…you’re welcome :-):
~ “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”
So, what do you think? Could this entire OT passage (verses 19-29) include those of us in the NT era?
Next…
~ Ex 23:20-21 “See, I am sending an angel [Many would say this angel (messenger) is Christ] ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.
~ Num 14:18 The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty…
Notice this last verse (Num 14:18) is clearly speaking of God’s slowness to anger and of his abounding and steadfast love as expressed in forgiveness. Yet, even though it speaks of the wonders of God’s love and forgiveness, his abounding love is not bound-less love. His love has boundaries which coincide with his justice and holiness. God will not clear (gospel) the guilty (law).
Did you catch the significance of this verse. If any verse in all of Scripture has potential for being a perfect UOJ proof, the first part of this verse would lead us to believe that this is it!
UOJ assumes God’s love, as expressed through forgiveness, is boundless. Yet, though this verse speaks of God’s abounding love, expressed through forgiveness, it also does that which the rest of Scripture consistently does, it refuses to result in UOJ. The second portion of the verse goes out of its way to explain the whole truth of the matter. Namely, that God’s love, expressed through forgiveness, though abounding is not boundless.
For God’s wrath and judgement remain for the guilty. The guilty have no part in the forgiveness of the first part of the verse. The guilty are not cleared of their guilt as the second part of the verse states. Finally, the guilty are not the guilt free, but remain the guilty as the second part also states.
In short, the gospel is withheld from them.
Let’s move on the the New Testament.
NT Passages:
~ Mt 6:14-15 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
~ Jn 20:23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
~ Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.
~ Mt 12:32 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.
Conclusion
As you can hopefully see from the above passages, the unbeliever’s condemnation before God is more than a matter of a law/gospel distinction. Scripture not only informs us that the unbeliever is condemned under the law, but, in keeping with the testimony of Scripture, he is not forgiven either.
While these two sides of the same truth ought to be self evident, UOJ attempts to confuse the issue by claiming a supposed law/gospel distinction which is ultimately a blending of law and gospel (rather than a distinction between the two) as explained above.
What it comes down to is this: The word of God very clear states that those who do not find themselves among the made-new children of God remain unforgiven, while the words of men claim (contrary to God) that these same unbelievers are forgiven. Bearing in mind that I have attempted to demonstrate (under the 3rd category tab, “UOJ Proof Passages”) UOJ has never legitimately (in context) been proved from Scripture, in the first place.
Either you believe our God of order, has both forgiven and not forgiven the unbeliever at the same time, or you (at the very least) are willing to question the idea…if not forsake it altogether.
If enough people question it, maybe Lutheran theologians will eventually feel compelled to legitimately discuss and debate…including actually listening to and considering an alternative (more biblical) view.
As for me, I have to conclude that God said what he meant and meant what he said…”not forgiven” means not forgiven, rather than meaning not forgiven and also forgiven. Call me crazy.
The gospel withheld, by itself, disproves UOJ.
Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments), UOJ or JIC?
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.
Category 2 - Analyzing the Defense of UOJ
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 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?
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?
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?
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?
Question/Objection to UOJ:
How can an unbeliever be forgiven, if the Bible says he’s condemned?
Defense for UOJ:
It comes down to a law/gospel distinction.
The argument suggests that passages which speak of the unbeliever’s condemnation are law passages, while those that teach UOJ are gospel passages. Understanding the distinction between law and gospel solves this apparent contradiction (according to UOJ).
But, is this true? Let’s investigate further to find out.
Analysis:
I’ve covered this in some detail in Category 1 (questions 4 & 5). I really don’t have anything more to add here, but have copied the text from question 5 here (Ensure updated copy is place below once proof-reading has been done), for your convenience:
[ 5 ] Does the gospel withheld disprove UOJ?
Truth or Fine Sounding Argumentation?
One way in which proponents of UOJ attempt to overcome the objections associated with the fact that Scripture clearly states that unbelievers stand condemned under God’s wrath is by making the claim that there is a law/gospel distinction being made between God’s condemnation and God’s forgiveness as explained by UOJ.
According to this line of thinking, it is simply a matter of the law when we understand that unbelievers stand condemned by God. By contrast, it is a matter of the gospel (so it is taught) to understand that these same unbelievers have God’s forgiveness applied to their lives. The two teachings, though seemingly contradictory (according to the proponent of UOJ) can still coexist nicely, once we understand this law/gospel distinction.
~ Col 2:4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.
While this may be a fine-sounding argument, I would suggest that it is a hollow and deceptive philosophy which has been imposed upon the text of Scripture rather than pulled from the text.
~ Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Why do I think this is just a fine sounding argument? What about those times when Scripture fails to speak in terms of the unbeliever’s condemnation under the law, but instead, speaks of the gospel being withheld?
More of The Same?
I’ve touched on the concept of “the gospel withheld” in a couple of other Q & A’s, but I believe this deserves its own Q & A, so we can dig into it in more detail.
Quite simply, the gospel withheld, by itself, disproves UOJ.
To be clear, those passages which speak of wrath and condemnation before a holy God, can indeed, rightly be considered law passages, while those passages which speak of justification, forgiveness and righteousness can also rightly be considered gospel passages.
If what I have just said is true, then what’s the problem?
Here it is. The law and the gospel do not…cannot…apply equally to the same person at the same time.
Under Law or Grace?
When we look at the whole of Scripture and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we come to realize that the believer is no longer under the law, but under grace. The law no longer applies to him in the same way that it did when he was an unbeliever.
~ Ro 6:14 [Speaking to those who have been brought from death to life – i.e. believers] For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
The flip side is also true – the unbeliever is not under grace (in a legal sense), rather he is exclusively under the law. Yes, God bestows some measure of grace on all of creation, but we are not speaking of that, here. We are speaking of God’s grace in a forensic (legal) sense in regards to God’s eternal judgement, specifically in regard to justification, forgiveness and righteousness. In this sense, the unbeliever is not under God’s grace, he is exclusively under the law.
~ Ro 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
The long and the short of it is that those passages which speak of the unbeliever’s condemnation and wrath are specifically statements of condemnation and wrath, under the law.
Moreover, those passages which speak of the believer as having received God’s justification, forgiveness and righteousness are specifically statements of gospel, to those under God’s grace.
Distinction or Blending?
To say that the unbeliever is both condemned and forgiven at the same time is not a distinction between law and gospel, but a blending of law and gospel. It is equivalent to saying that the unbeliever is both under the law and under grace at the same time.
If we are going to use a law/gospel argument, let’s use the law and the gospel correctly (and fully) without blending the two together. Any good Lutheran knows that we should always be careful to use the law and the gospel correctly, including the fact that we should never mix the two together.
But wait…there’s more!
Scripture not only speaks of the unbeliever as standing under God’s wrath and condemnation, but it also speaks specifically of the gospel being withheld from him. In other words, Scripture not only speaks of the law condemning the unbeliever, but at the other end of the spectrum (or on the other side of the coin, if you will) of his NOT being forgiving by the gospel.
I’m no rocket scientist, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the gospel cannot rightly be said to be fully applied (though not credited) and to be fully withheld at the same time.
Again, to be clear, I am not speaking of wrath and condemnation passages, here. I am speaking of gospel withheld passages. There is an important distinction to be made between the two.
Proofs of Gospel Withheld
Let’s take a look at a few passages which specifically speak of the gospel being withheld.
We’ll begin in the Old Testament. An argument could be made that these OT passages do not apply to those in the NT era. I would encourage you to look them up for yourself in their broader context to see if any of these are exclusively for the people of the OT or whether some (or all) are intended to be understood in an ongoing sense.
Moreover, UOJ teaches that God’s forgiveness is essentially retroactive, meaning it not only applies from the cross (or empty tomb, as the case may be) forward, but goes all the way back to creation. So, if you want to argue that these OT passages do not apply, you’ll have to factor this retroactive application into your thinking as you try to wrap your head around the problems with UOJ.
OT Passages:
~ Deut 29:19-20 When such a person hears the words of this oath, he invokes a blessing on himself and therefore thinks, “I will be safe, even though I persist in going my own way.” This will bring disaster on the watered land as well as the dry. The LORD will never be willing to forgive him; his wrath and zeal will burn against that man. All the curses written in this book will fall upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven.
This chapter ends with these words from verse 29 (see, I’ve done some of the context homework for you…you’re welcome :-):
~ “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”
So, what do you think? Could this entire OT passage (verses 19-29) include those of us in the NT era?
Next…
~ Ex 23:20-21 “See, I am sending an angel [Many would say this angel (messenger) is Christ] ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.
~ Num 14:18 The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty…
Notice this last verse (Num 14:18) is clearly speaking of God’s slowness to anger and of his abounding and steadfast love as expressed in forgiveness. Yet, even though it speaks of the wonders of God’s love and forgiveness, his abounding love is not bound-less love. His love has boundaries which coincide with his justice and holiness. God will not clear (gospel) the guilty (law).
Did you catch the significance of this verse. If any verse in all of Scripture has potential for being a perfect UOJ proof, the first part of this verse would lead us to believe that this is it!
UOJ assumes God’s love, as expressed through forgiveness, is boundless. Yet, though this verse speaks of God’s abounding love, expressed through forgiveness, it also does that which the rest of Scripture consistently does, it refuses to result in UOJ. The second portion of the verse goes out of its way to explain the whole truth of the matter. Namely, that God’s love, expressed through forgiveness, though abounding is not boundless.
For God’s wrath and judgement remain for the guilty. The guilty have no part in the forgiveness of the first part of the verse. The guilty are not cleared of their guilt as the second part of the verse states. Finally, the guilty are not the guilt free, but remain the guilty as the second part also states.
In short, the gospel is withheld from them.
Let’s move on the the New Testament.
NT Passages:
~ Mt 6:14-15 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
~ Jn 20:23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
~ Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.
~ Mt 12:32 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.
Conclusion
As you can hopefully see from the above passages, the unbeliever’s condemnation before God is more than a matter of a law/gospel distinction. Scripture not only informs us that the unbeliever is condemned under the law, but, in keeping with the testimony of Scripture, he is not forgiven either.
While these two sides of the same truth ought to be self evident, UOJ attempts to confuse the issue by claiming a supposed law/gospel distinction which is ultimately a blending of law and gospel (rather than a distinction between the two) as explained above.
What it comes down to is this: The word of God very clear states that those who do not find themselves among the made-new children of God remain unforgiven, while the words of men claim (contrary to God) that these same unbelievers are forgiven. Bearing in mind that I have attempted to demonstrate (under the 3rd category tab, “UOJ Proof Passages”) UOJ has never legitimately (in context) been proved from Scripture, in the first place.
Either you believe our God of order, has both forgiven and not forgiven the unbeliever at the same time, or you (at the very least) are willing to question the idea…if not forsake it altogether.
If enough people question it, maybe Lutheran theologians will eventually feel compelled to legitimately discuss and debate…including actually listening to and considering an alternative (more biblical) view.
As for me, I have to conclude that God said what he meant and meant what he said…”not forgiven” means not forgiven, rather than meaning not forgiven and also forgiven. Call me crazy.
The gospel withheld, by itself, disproves UOJ.
Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments), UOJ or JIC?