Oregon 1

Nathaniel Oregon
Professor Cosmin R.
English II
7 May 2015
Universal Legal Justification: True or False?
Someone who walks into a church of just about any denomination might hear some
discussion about justification in one form or another. Most of those engaged in the discussion
might differ from each other so much as to be complete opposites. One might even go into
churches of the same denomination all across America or even the other side of town and find
various explanations for the doctrine of justification. Even within a single church body one might
hear opposing ideas concerning justification. Looking back at the history of the Seventh-day
Adventist (SDA) Church, and possibly even still today, one might hear terms like Universal
Legal Justification (ULJ) or Universal Forensic-Only Justification. (Both of these terms mean
the same thing.) This topic has been a heated debate over the past few decades in the SDA
Church at large. This paper will examine the evidence, or lack there of, for Universal Legal
Justification. The conclusion will be drawn that there is a lack of evidence for ULJ.
The simple definition for ULJ is that all mankind were justified at the cross past, present,
and future. Angel Rodriguez, former director of the Biblical Research Institute (BRI), said this
when describing what ULJ is,
Legal universal justification proposes that a distinction should be made between
justification by grace and justification by faith. The first one is an absolute
forensic, divine decision by which the whole human race was [saved] through the

Oregon 2
event of the cross legally justified independent of any human involvement
Justification by faith designates the individual's appropriation by faith of the
salvation that is already theirs. Therefore the human decision does not activate
salvation (Rodriguez 1).

In other words, one involves freedom of choice while the other (ULJ view) does not, but is all
Gods decision. This in itself should raise a red flag to those who are firm advocates of free will.
Another definition by Woodrow Whidden in his paper, Universal Legal Justification in the
Writings of E. J. Waggoner, is expressed this way, This position holds that God pardons the
sinner prior to any conscious belief in Christ (Whidden 1). Again, no free will involved.
The debate really goes back to the issue of Arminian (free will) vs. Calvinist
(predestination) theology. Either God gives everyone a choice as to where they want to spend
eternity as they exercise their free will (Arminian view), or in His infinite wisdom He decided
before Creation who will be saved and who will be lost (Calvinist view). ULJ seems to fit the
understanding of Calvinist theology because it takes away free will. Arminian theology consists
of free will. To a Calvinist it makes perfect sense. But to the Arminian it goes against Gods
nature and perfect love.
Adventist Scholars view of ULJ
Many scholars within Adventism claim that this popular idea came out of the 1888
message, Righteousness by Faith taught by Jones and Waggoner. The interpreters of Waggoner
debate over which view he supported. Many on the 1888 Study Committee, including Robert
Weiland and Donald J. Short, believe Waggoner supported ULJ. Waggoner said,

Oregon 3
The free gift came upon all men to justification of life. Are all men going to
be justified? All men might if they would; but says Christ: Ye will not come to
me that ye might have life. All are dead in trespasses and sins. The grace of God
that brings salvation hath appeared unto all men. It comes right within reach of
all men, and those who do not get it are those who do not want it (Waggoner
15).
The beginning of this quote seems to agree with ULJ. But the second half of the quote appears to
support Arminianism. Those who do not want it, do not get it (Waggoner 15), hence the free
will. Without the latter part of the quote ULJ seems plausible, but because it is included it stands
to reason that free will is what Waggoner believed and taught.
Another quote worth looking at may be where 21st century advocates of ULJ get the
notion that Waggoner taught ULJ says this;
It may be said that God does not actually forgive men until they repent. This is
true; but He desired that they shall receive His pardon, and therefore, so far as
He is concerned, He has pardoned them. All that is lacking is for them to accept
the pardon which He offers them; if they will not, He is clear, and the
responsibility of their ruin rests upon themselves (Waggoner).
If they focus only on the first sentence which does not explicitly speak against ULJ, then the
second sentence gives at least some clarity stating the truth that men are not forgiven until they
repent (Waggoner).They must accept the pardon (Waggoner) and if they dont, the
consequence is up to them. It sounds as though this statement recognizes free will also. Whidden
gives an explanation of this quote, what he seemed to want to communicate was not some

Oregon 4
version of universal legal justification, but the deep desires of God that they shall receive His
pardon. Thus, in the mind of God He has pardoned them (Whidden 1). Later in the same
paper, he claims that Waggoner was very clear that justification is a personal, not a corporate, or
collective, matter. Waggoner could not have put it any more simply when commenting on
Galatians 3 saying, there can be no Christian experience, no faith, no justification, no
righteousness that is not an individual matter. People are saved as individuals, and not as
nations (Waggoner 45).
However, Waggoner didnt always believe so strongly in this way. The above quotes by
Waggoner were written before 1892. Later in Whiddens paper he points out that after 1892
Waggoner switched his views and started teaching ULJ. Specifically pointing out a series of
lectures at the General Conference in 1897 and referring to an article in one of those lectures,
Whidden states that there is
unmistakable evidence that Waggoner definitely taught that Christ was
crucified and risen in every man and that He is bearing their sin and that
even the ungodly are counted as His children and are accepted in the
Beloved. This is far beyond an offer to them or the possibility of
spurning (Whidden 4).
Waggoners views changed from not believing in ULJ to fully teaching it. Around the same time
his views had a pantheistic flavor to them. Whidden states, Beginning in 1894 and then flooding
forth like a tidal rush of muddy water in 1897, Waggoner clearly evidenced pantheistic
tendencies (Whidden 4) Later Whidden sums it up with this statement, Is there a doctrine of
universal legal justification for the ungodly in Waggoner? Yes, there clearly is, and it appears to

Oregon 5
be the offspring of the pagan philosophy of pantheism (Whidden 4). In the beginning Waggoner
clearly did not teach ULJ. It came later when he started believing in Pantheism. So one might
question where advocates of ULJ get this teaching. Either his pantheistic beliefs led to believing
in ULJ or visa versa.
Perhaps another option to consider might be that Waggoner did not accept and begin
teaching ULJ, but that his beliefs in pantheism have been mistaken for a belief in ULJ. One
author who thinks this said, What one does begin to see in Waggoners 1897 and later writings
is a neo-pantheistic teaching regarding the personal presence of God. This, I believe, has been
construed by some as the teaching of universal justification (Reich). One might be able to see
how this idea would certainly weaken the arguments of ULJ supporters who claim Waggoner as
a source.
Ballengers New Theology
There have been a few major protagonists of ULJ in SDA history. One of whom being
Albion Fox Ballenger, who was a full time evangelist and revivalist for the SDA Church in 1890.
Shortly after the year 1900 he started teaching a new theology on salvation in Christ, which
effected his views regarding the heavenly sanctuary and the atonement. One of his new views
had to do with ULJ. These ideas began to raise the eyebrows of many of his colleagues, to say
the least. Some time before the 1905 GC Session he presented his new theology to the British
Union Conference. But after three hours his views were rejected and he was relived from his post
as president to the Irish Mission (Reich).
Shortly after this, Ballenger decided to write a book explaining in better detail his new
theology. After being rejected by the brethren to publish it, ten years later he self published it.

Oregon 6
The main thrust was to prove ULJ was already given to all men. The content of this book is
summed up by the author:
If the reader would know at once what is the central thought,the allabsorbing theme,the body, soul and spirit of this book, it is summed up in the
final words of our dying Lord, It is finished.. . . The author prays that it may
reveal to some waiting soul the gospel truth that he need no longer wait for full
salvation, but may now, by faith, take this gift already given through that work
of Christ of which He declared with His final breath (Ballenger 5).
As sincere as Ballenger may have been, his colleagues just did not agree with his new theology.
During the 1905 GC Session, he presented his new idea on Salvation and for three days a special
committee examined his views, but it was still rejected (Reich).
Ellen White was present at this session and while attending the conference she wrote in
her diary a significant contribution in the debate over ULJ and its dangers.
Brother Ballenger is presenting theories that can not be substantiated by the
Word of God. It will be one of the great evils that will come to our people to
have the Scriptures taken out of their true place and so interpreted as to
substantiate error that contradicts the light and the testimonies that God has been
giving us for the past half century. I declare in the name of the Lord that the
most dangerous heresies are seeking to find entrance among us as a people, and
Elder Ballenger is making spoil of his own soul. . . . We must not give
countenance to his reasoning. He is not led of God (White 4).

Oregon 7
Clearly Sister White did not approve of Ballengers new theology, ULJ. Not only did she not
approve but gave counsel to the delegates of the GC stating that Brother Ballenger has been
allowing his mind to receive and believe specious error. He has been misinterpreting and
misapplying the Scriptures upon which he has fastened his mind. He is building up theories that
are not founded in truth (White 8). She did not want to leave any confusion on the matter and
made it plain to the delegates of the errors Ballenger now taught. (Reich)
In a general report at the end of the session we find this statement, It is clear that the
delegates to this conference do not look with favor upon any phase of the so-called New
Theology (qtd. in Reich). And four months later White wrote that the doctrines that Elder
Ballenger advances, if received, would unsettle our faith in the sanctuary question (White 15).
This is exactly what happened with Ballenger. Not long after he embraced ULJ as truth did he
reject the Sanctuary Doctrine as well.
When Ballenger passed away, it was thought that his ULJ teaching had died with him.
However, in the 20th century it sprang up again by Jack Sequeira in the late 80s to early 90s.
Some problematic statements by Sequeira that Ballenger would have agreed with are things like:
Stumbling under grace, falling into sin, does not deprive us of justification (Sequeira 166).
Why? Because everyone received it at the cross 2000 years ago. Another one concerning ULJ is
this; All three of these aspects of our salvation justification, sanctification and glorification
have already been accomplished in the birth, life, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus
Christ (Sequeira 30). There is no need to obey because Christ already did that for us.
Let us examine a few more direct statements linking Sequeiras teachings to Ballengers.
I believe the Bible teaches that God actually and unconditionally saved all humanity at the cross

Oregon 8
so that we are justified and reconciled to God by that act ... (Sequeira 8). Unconditionally
meaning that there is nothing anyone can do to get kicked out of heaven. This obviously would
mean that all men are saved without repentance and believing. There is no free will exercised
here, only a dictatorial God who forces His will on everyone.
Here Sequeira plainly states his view on ULJ,
According to this view, Christs life and death actually changed mankinds past.
Because each of us was corporately identified with Christs humanity, His life
and death became our life and death. In Him, we lived a perfect life; in Him we
died the penalty for sin. When Christ died on the cross, all humanity was legally
justified because all humanity died with Him there (Sequeira 43).
In his paper, Ballenger Revived, Nyron Medina comments on this quote telling us that Sequeira
is explaining ULJ even further to mean Christ actually changing mankinds past, paying the
penalty for mans sins. This obviously would mean that NO MAN should die the second death
because Christ justified all men without any act on their part (Medina 25).
The According to this view, that Sequeira is referring to is the view in which he
previously states that Christ had to assume the human sinful nature that needed
redeeming (Sequeira 43). This obviously raises some serious red flags because on the page
before that he says, A sinful human nature is itself sin (Sequeira 42). He attempts to address
this issue later on the same page, and the following, but just dances around never giving a solid
answer. Almost like a politician who is asked a hard question and dances around it while
rambling on to create a facade of truth to the simple minded.

Oregon 9
Robert Weiland and the 1888 Message Study Committee endorsed Sequeiras book in one
of their publications and experienced some heat from those who disagreed with his line of
reasoning. Weiland, in a attempt to win back many of their supporters and readers, wrote a book
called, Is Beyond Belief Beyond Belief? A Critique of Jack Sequeiras Book, where he goes
through it with a fine tooth comb, trying to explain better the concepts presented in Sequeiras
book. Instead of giving solid explanations, Weiland often encouraged the reader to re-read
certain sections of Sequeiras book. But much like Sequeira, Weiland does not bring anything
new to the table to validate the ULJ doctrine as being supported by Scripture, or other inspired
writings (Weiland).
Just as Sister White said that these views would lead one to reject the Sanctuary message,
a series of recorded tapes by Sequeira at Walla Walla University Church on a series he did on the
Sanctuary reveals that he has all but rejected it. He has many views that are not supported in
Scripture of the Spirit of Prophecy concerning the Sanctuary. Ideas that will cause people to
question the validity of the Sanctuary doctrine itself.
Earlier in this paper was shown how Whidden pointed out the links between Waggoner,
pantheism and ULJ. It was also pointed out that Reich believed proponents of ULJ may have
misinterpreted Waggoners pantheistic comments for his teaching of ULJ. Medina also makes a
similar connection with pantheism and ULJ in Sequeiras teachings exclaiming that, While the
teaching of an objective, legal, universal justification is presented in Jack Sequeiras book,
Beyond Belief, it is not the central teaching of his so-called gospel. His central teaching is a form
of Christian pantheistic in Christ motif (Medina 16). Christ does not force his way into
anyone. He will not go against mans free will. But Sequeira, like Ballenger, does not hold this

Oregon 10
view. According to several authors, their pantheistic theology has corrupted the SDA Church.
Medina even goes as far as to state the following,
Since this legal universal justification causes men to be righteous and
unrighteousness in Gods sight at the same time, and since good or righteousness
is of God and unrighteousness originated from Lucifer, then God and Lucifer,
are placed on the same level. This makes Lucifer God together with God and
thus justifies his pantheism which he used to justify his claims (Medina 27).
While this claim may be subjective based on empirical evidence, a strong case could be drawn to
make this conclusion.
If ULJ is not biblical nor supported in the Spirit of Prophecy (SOP) nor by Jones and
Waggoner, then what is the correct biblical understanding of justification? The word justify in
Hebrew and Greek never refers to the infusion of righteousness, that is the transformation of
someone from being ungodly to being virtuous (Wilhelmus 343). The Bible Students Source
Book of the SDA Commentary series Volume 9 says this about justification by faith;
The phrase justification by faith, then, simply means acceptance of a
forgiveness and a reconciliation made by God Himself, and the total
abandonment of efforts at self-justification. Gods action, His grace, as Paul
calls it, becomes effectual when the truth of the matter becomes real by
faith (Phillips 551).
When the believer exercises faith in the finished work of the cross it becomes an experiential
reality. In a personal interview, Dr. A. Leroy Moore, a speaker and author of several books on

Oregon 11
SDA history and on Righteousness by Faith, stated that Christs death on the cross made
provision for all to be saved. One only needs to exercise faith in that fact to be saved (Moore).
Based on the counsel given to us through the Spirit of prophecy, it is best to steer clear of
the teaching of ULJ through the writings' of Ballenger and Sequeira; and a caution to what is put
out by Weiland, Short, and the 1888 Message Study Committee for the support of Sequeiras
theology. The lack of evidence for ULJ shows this doctrine to be error and those who embrace it
are in danger of embracing other fallacies as warned by Ellen White and demonstrated by
Ballenger and Sequeira.

Oregon 12

Works Cited

Rodriguez, Angel M. "Legal Universal Justification: Brief Description and Evaluation." Trans.
Fred Bischoff. (n.d.): n. pag. Gospel Study Group. 7 Apr. 2013. Web. 18 May 2015.
November 18, 2010 Adventist Theological Society, at the Evangelical Theological
Society 2010 Fall Symposium - Righteousness by Faith
Whidden, Aiias Woodrow. "Universal Legal Justification in the Writings of E. J.
Waggoner." (n.d.): n. pag. Biblical Research Institute. Adventist International Institute of
Advanced Studies (AIIAS). Web.
Waggoner, Elliot J. Bible Studies on the Book of Romans. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
Waggoner, Elliot J. The Lords Prayer. Forgive Us Our Debts. The Signs of the Times 05 May
1887: n. pag.
Waggoner, E. J. The Gospel in the Book of Galatians. Oakland: CA, 1888. 45. Print.
Reich, Jeff. "Universal Legal Justification and the Demise of a Preacher." (n.d.): n. pag. Laymen
Minitstries. Web. 7 May 2015.
Ballenger, Albion Fox. Preface. The Proclamation of Liberty and the Unpardonable Sin.
Riverside, CA: Author, 1915. 5-6. Web. 6 May 2015.
White, E. G. (1981). Manuscript Release No. 760. Washington, D.C.: Ellen G. White Estate.
White, E. G. (1905, June 1). The General Conference Bulletin.
White, E. G. St. Helena, Cal. Oct. 31, 1905; MS-145-1905. Diary.
Wieland, Robert J. Is Beyond Belief beyond Belief? Paris, OH: Committee, 1994. Print.

Oregon 13
Medina, Nyron. "BALLENGER REVIVED: The Folly of Universal Legal Justification." (n.d.):
n. pag. Web. 5 May 2015.
Phillips, J. B. New Testament Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1956. Print. Vol. 9 of the SDA
Commentary Series Titled, Bible Students' Source Book used this quote with the
permission of The Macmillan Company.
WILHELMUS BRAKEL, Thess F. Trans. Bartel Elshout. Ed. Joel R. Beeke. THE
CHRISTIANS REASONABLE SERVICE 4th ser. 2 (1992): 343. D. Bolle, Rotterdam.
Web. 7 May 2015.
Moore, A. Leroy, Dr. Personal interview. 28 Apr. 2015