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
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?
For Now
Technically, according to the current “official” teachings of UOJ, proponents are quick to reject universalism (the belief that all people are saved) as being an unbiblical, heretical, teaching.
Associated with this, proponents of UOJ also reject any notion of new life or eternal life having been granted to all people apart from saving faith…for now.
Example 1
For example, here is a quote from a pro-UOJ resource:
“Objective justification is not the teaching that everyone, regardless of faith or unbelief, will be saved.” (Justification – Am I good enough for God?, Rolf Preus, page 3, Northwestern Publishing House).
Yet, in the very same booklet, it says this:
“Objective justification guarantees that the means of grace really are means of grace.
‘Friend, are you saved?’
‘Yes, I am saved.’
‘Praise the Lord! When were you saved?’
‘When Jesus took away my sins on the cross. It was then that God saved me and justified me by Jesus’ blood.’” (Justification – Am I good enough for God?, Rolf Preus, pages 18-19, Northwestern Publishing House).
Universalism in Disguise?
Do you see the problem? Though UOJ proponents technically reject universalism (when the subject of universalism is brought up), they also effectively promote it (when not making the connection to universalism). In other words, they do not always seem to be putting two and two together, in the whole of their teaching.
Fact, God’s People Are Prone to Wandering
If there is one thing I have learned over the past 20+ years since my Christian conversion, it is this…our own sinful natures, coupled with the influence of Satan, combine to make an often underestimated, yet powerful force which is bound and determined to lead us astray. In all of human history, it’s a fact, many (if not most) of God’s people have been prone to wander to one extent or another.
Here’s what I mean. Today, UOJ proponents openly reject universalism, while subtly they are also being lead astray (by sin and Satan) to promote it at the very same time. Tomorrow (which could be 10, 25 or 50 years from now), UOJ proponents may no longer be rejecting universalism, but instead, may have been led astray, little-by-little, until they have come to openly embrace it.
Today, those who reject UOJ, while members of a UOJ promoting church body, are disfellowshipped for their rejection of UOJ. Tomorrow, those who reject universalism may be disfellowshipped by those same church bodies who will have, at that time, accepted universalism as sound doctrine.
Far more important than remaining in fellowship or being disfellowshipped, however, will be the multitudes who will have been led astray by this false theology to the point of being separated (or remaining separated) from God for eternity. And, all in the name of sound doctrine.
Example 2
As I wrap up the answer to this Q & A question, I will leave you with one more example of UOJ leading to universalism. This too is from a pro-UOJ resource.
“…God has, as a gift of his grace, justified all men, that is, he has declared them righteous and just. As a result, they [what else can “they” refer to but the previous “all men” and “them”?] are awarded life.
Since this is something that has taken place through Jesus’ life death and resurrection and is an objective reality, it may be spoken of as objective justification. It is also called universal atonement.” (Basic Doctrines of the Bible, Armin W. Schuetze, page 42, Northwestern Publishing House). Emphasis and bracketed text are mine.
In addition to calling it “objective justification” and “universal atonement,” I think there is another term for it – “universalism” (in a not-so-subtle disguise).
No Surprise
My hope and prayer is that many will begin to see UOJ for what it really is; that they will see that the biblical evidence is overwhelmingly against UOJ and stop proclaiming it to the multitudes. If not, we should not be surprised when many are led astray into universalism in the future.
Every false doctrine, carried to its logical conclusion, ends in spiritual death.
Think about it.
Which is more consistent with the truth of Scripture and therefore less likely to lead people away from the Savior, UOJ or JIC?
Is It Worth Questioning?
How much is enough?
How do we know when to quit?
At what point do we determine we have legitimately rung-out every last drop of biblical truth from any given doctrine before we find we have gone just a little too far in defining the details?
And, if someone does over-step…just a little…what does it take for someone else (with some level of authority) to come along and recognize this over-stepping for what it is and to make an authoritative change?
Further, what if that slight over-stepping becomes formally documented “truth,” an official church doctrine, part of the seminary curriculum, and the like?
What if, over time, little-by-little, one more nugget of “truth” or one more “proof” passage gets added to the original slight over-stepping?
What if these new “truths” also get added to formal documents, official church doctrine, seminary curriculum, and the like?
What would it take for these supposed truths to be corrected rather than vehemently held onto, no matter what?
Pulling From or Reading Into?
Exegesis vs eisegesis.
Those are the fancy theological terms which simply refer to pulling meaning from the text vs. reading meaning into the text.
Exegesis is to pull meaning from the text of Scripture – allowing Scripture to speak to you.
Eisegesis, on the other hand, is to read meaning into the text of Scripture – imposing meaning upon the text. Put another way, eisegesis is seeing meaning in the text, which just isn’t there.
It can certainly be an easy thing to do, especially in this digital age, when we can so easily “search” for a particular word, phrase or topic and dozens of results pop up…all, out of context.
Context
Read out of context, a number of “proof” passages for UOJ, for example, could easily seem to suggest (on the surface) UOJ could actually be true.
Ahh, but context…context is always king.
Or…should be.
In context, any given passage can take on an entirely different meaning than that which may appear to be the case, when taken out of context. Only in context, can we legitimately expect to find and correctly comprehend the original (the true) meaning of the passage in question.
Any False Doctrine…
The topic of how man comes to be justified before a holy God is arguably the central, most important doctrine in all of Scripture.
When errors arise regarding any doctrine of Scripture, by-and-large, we do well to address them one-by-one. We do well to “put down” error with the light of God’s truth. We do well to quickly extinguish the flaming arrows of the evil one before his lies have the opportunity to take root and grow.
“Any false doctrine, carried to its logical conclusion, ends in spiritual death.”
If you have been around conservative Lutheran circles for any length of time, you may have heard this statement before.
I happen to agree with this statement.
If we need to take every precaution to squash any false teaching, in an attempt to avoid spiritual death (or preserve spiritual life, as the case may be) how much more important is it to pay particularly close attention to those teachings which have to do with justification.
Too Much of a Good Thing?
I don’t know exactly how the teaching of UOJ came to be, but if I had to guess, I would think it had something to do with addressing some sort of real or perceived doctrinal error. Or, maybe it was simply an attempt to find an answer to some previously unanswered question.
Either way, is it possible that somewhere along the way someone (or more than one someone) stepped into error, while trying to define things too precisely?
Possible…is it just possible?
If so, what would it take to correct it?
At what point do we determine we have legitimately rung-out every last drop of biblical truth from any given doctrine before we find we have gone just a little too far in defining the details?
Have proponents of UOJ attempted to define things a little too precisely?
How will you handle the word of God?
Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture, UOJ or JIC or something else?
To find out more about UOJ “proof” passages in context, see Category 3 – UOJ Proof Passages.
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.