Category Listings
This section addresses objections surrounding UOJ and is divided into tabs according to 3 categories below:
Category 3 (UOJ Proof Passages) could have easily fallen under either of the first two categories. For this reason and due to the fact that each proof passage contains a fairly detailed explanation, UOJ Proof Passages became its own category.
Instructions
Each individual objection is presented as a question, a statement (in response to a question), or a proof passage…all in keeping with the each of the 3 categories, in a closed accordion style entry (to save space). Once opened, each listed entry contains the answer or analysis for each objection. To see each answer/analysis, simply click the large orange “+” symbol next to each question/statement. When finished with each answer/response, you can either close the response (click on the big orange “-” symbol) and open the next one or simply click on the next “+” symbol and the previous response will close automatically.
While it may be helpful to read each category tab, with each of its listed objections, all the way through one-at-a-time, you may also find it useful to skip around a bit.
Category 1 - Direct Objections to UOJ
Another Possibility
According to UOJ, God has forgiven all sinners (including unbelievers) whether they believe it (or are even aware of it) or not.
According to UOJ, it is ASSUMED that justification, forgiveness and righteousness (among other things) are all effectively synonymous.
Further, according to UOJ, it is ASSUMED that forgiven sin = forgiven sinner. Moreover, forgiven sinner = all sinners forgiven (believer and unbeliever alike).
Yet, is there another possibility?
In keeping with JIC, forgiven sin ≠ forgiven sinner, except through faith (note, that I used a “does not equal” symbol, there…you caught that, right?).
The questions from proponents of UOJ then become, “How can sin be actually forgiven if each individual has not been forgiven? In other words, how can sins be actually forgiven apart from sinners being actually forgiven, as well?
Simple. As explained earlier in the “God Says” section of this site, this forgiveness for each person’s sins has been forgiven in Christ’s account and is then distributed to individuals (each person’s own account) exclusively through faith.
Why Does This Matter?
Okay, so what if it’s true that sins forgiven, may not equate to each and every sinner forgiven? What’s the point?
I address this subject for a couple of reasons:
1) To illustrate the point that there are numerous assumptions inherent in UOJ theology, which have not been proven.
2) To hopefully emphasize the need for each of us as Christians to think critically and to be willing to question that which we are being taught. And, to do such thinking and questioning in light of Scripture and sound, biblical reasoning.
Let’s use Jn 1:29 to help illustrate my point.
Who Takes Away…
~ John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”
Here, the proponent of UOJ may say, “See, there you have it! Scripture is clear. Christ, the lamb of God, has taken away the sins of the whole world.”
Well, aside from the obvious problems associated with the reality that this verse says nothing of the whole world’s sins having been already taken away. There’s still another issue…but, we’ll look at that in a moment.
First, lets address the obvious.
1) The verse does not say “has taken away” (as in the past) it says “takes away” (as in ongoing).
2) John’s having said, “has taken away” would make no sense, before Jesus went to the cross, in the first place.
3) Who else’s sins, but those of the world’s would Christ be taking away? In other words, just because the verse mentions the sin of the world, doesn’t necessarily mean that the whole world’s sin (all at once) is taken away, at least not in the way UOJ teaches. It can simply mean “…the lamb of God, who takes away sin from those of the world.”
Now, let’s address the less obvious. First, it is important to note that UOJ theologians have said, referring to this verse, that “takes away” means “already forgiven.” Actually, to be more specific, I just read a portion of one paper which said this:
“John 1:29 teaches objective justification. Jesus has taken away the sin of the world. This passage alone should settle the issue. What does take away mean, if not forgive?” (Objective Jusitification by Rolf Preus, http://www.christforus.org/objectivejustification.htm) Emphasis is mine.
Notice the phrase “takes away” in Jn 1:29 is changed by Mr. Preus to both “taken away” and “take away.” While both of these changes help to support UOJ, they are not the same as the biblical text, nor do they hold the same meaning.
Yes, I too put the meaning of the text of Scripture into my own words on this site and elsewhere, but here the meaning of the text is drastically altered to fit a teaching which is being imposed upon the text rather than pulled from it.
But, that’s not really the point. Though sadly, the reality is that I have found this kind of deception as fairly typical in UOJ circles (by the way, when I say “deception,” I am not stating emphatically that Mr. Preus is intentionally being deceptive, I am saying that the deception is there, whether intentionally from Mr. Preus or from the influence of sin and Satan in his own life). The real reason I use this example is to simply make the point that UOJ theologians suggest that “takes away” = already forgiven.
So, let’s run with that.
If “takes away” means already forgiven, then proponents of UOJ would have us understand Jn 29:1 to mean, “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who has already forgiven the sin of the world!”
Again, for the sake of argument, let’s say this verse actually means, “…has already forgiven all of the sins of the whole world.” The reality is this: sins, already forgiven, would still do nothing to prove UOJ.
Why?
Because forgiven sins ≠ forgiven sinners, in the way that UOJ promotes.
Do I think God has forgiven all of the sin of the whole world? Yes! Do I think God has applied that forgiveness to each and every individual – believer and unbeliever alike? No! I think and believe that God has applied that forgiveness to Christ’s account and distributes that forgiveness to individuals exclusively through faith.
But, in the end, it doesn’t matter what I think and believe. You have to determine what the bible really teaches for yourself.
I encourage you to think critically and to be willing to question the status quo, in light of Scripture.
What do you think? Does forgiven sin = forgiven sinner, in the UOJ sense? Which makes more sense in light of Scripture, UOJ, JIC, or something else?
(For more on Jn 29:1, see Category Tab #3, “UOJ Proof Passages” above.)
Category 2 – Analyzing the Defense of UOJ
Attempts at Defending UOJ
How does the proponent of UOJ go about defending UOJ when legitimate questions or objections are raised? Is the UOJ defense valid? Is the defense biblical? Is it based upon sound logic and reasoning, in light of Scripture?
Here, in Category 2 (Analyzing the Defense of UOJ), I have attempted to put forth a number of common defenses given by proponents of UOJ when a legitimated question or an objection is raised, followed by my own analysis of those defenses.
In Category 1, everything was listed in a strictly Q & A format. Here, each listing is in a question/objection, defense, then analysis format (sometimes with multiple defenses and analyses following the same question/objection).
Upon opening each listing you will find 1) the original question/objection restated, 2) additional details about the defense from proponents of UOJ and 3) my analysis of that defense. I encourage you to determine for yourself whether or not each defense of UOJ is a valid one, in light of Scripture and plain reasoning.
Category 3 – UOJ Proof Passages
Reasonable Doubt
Below are a number of commonly used “proof” passages used to support UOJ. With each of these passages of Scripture, much could be said in an effort to disprove or at least raise a reasonable doubt regarding the validity of UOJ. Instead of getting into great detail with each passage, however, I will simply offer here a very brief (as brief as possible, while still giving sufficient detail) analysis regarding the use of each passage as a proof for UOJ.
The Burden of Proof
Bear in mind (and this is important), the burden of proof falls on the proponent of UOJ to prove his case from Scripture, not on the one questioning the use of a passage, to disprove it’s use. This is particularly true when the proponent of UOJ is so adamant in his theology, to the point of disfellowshipping those who would question the validity of UOJ, seemingly without serious questioning, analysis, discussion or debate.