How Will You Know?
In the end, Scripture teaches what it teaches. It’s up to each individual Christian to determine for himself how to interpret what God has revealed to us in his word and what he has not. And, I would urge each Christian to think and seek to understand for himself, rather than simply “buying into” whatever his church body teaches. We are each to be sheep of the Good Shepherd, not sheep to our denomination.

Personally, I would argue that the biblical evidence seems overwhelmingly against God having declared all (including the unbeliever) to be justified in any way, shape or form other than by way of that which remains in Christ and becomes ours exclusively through saving faith…alone.

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

What is UOC?
Universal Objective Condemnation (or UOC, as I have come to call it), by itself, disproves UOJ.

According to UOC, the whole world, according to their normal, natural sinful condition (apart from saving faith), stands separated from God and under his condemnation and wrath. This is universally and objectively true for all people whether they believe this or not.

UOJ & UOC Cannot Both Be True
In short, if UOC is true, then UOJ cannot be true, and if UOJ is true then UOC cannot be true.

This is the reality of the situation, no matter how much the proponent of UOJ tries to confuse the issue by attempting to separate the two into a law/gospel distinction – declaring that since condemnation is a matter of law and forgiveness is a matter of the gospel, both can be true of the same person, namely, each unbeliever. (See “Does the unpardonable sin disprove UOJ?” and “Does the gospel withheld disprove UOJ?” for a demonstration that this supposed law/gospel distinction is nonsensical according to Scripture.)

For, the unbeliever cannot rightly be declared, by God, to be condemned, unrighteous and lacking in the removal of (and the forgiveness of) sins as well as being declared justified, righteous and forgiven at the same time.

Elsewhere (in the tabs above), I’ve taken a somewhat detailed look at those “proof” passages which supposedly teach UOJ. At best, they are very questionable – normally due to having been yanked out of proper context (though not always). But what about UOC? Is the Bible also so sketchy on the subject of the universal condemnation of sinful man?

What God Says About UOC
Let’s take a look.

~ 2 Pt 2:9 – The Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment.

~ 1 Co 6:9 (NKJV) – Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?

~ 1 Pt 3:18 – For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous [unjust in NKJV], to bring you to God.

~ Jn 3:18 – Whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

~ Jn 3:36 – Whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.

~ Jn 16:8-9 – When he [the Spirit] comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me.

~ 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.

UOC Verses Explained
While we could include a number of additional passages to the list above, those listed are more than sufficient to prove the point. The unrighteous (the unjust) stand condemned already with God’s wrath remaining on them, while they are also convicted (by the Holy Spirit) of their guilt for their unbelief.

Does this sound like objective justification (UOJ) or universal condemnation (UOC)? The Reality is that each of these passages speaks volumes against UOJ.

UOJ expressly teaches that all people, including the unbeliever, have been declared to be both just and righteous. Yet, the first 3 passages above specifically declare the unbeliever to be unjust or unrighteous.

Next, Jn 3:18 speaks specifically of the unbeliever standing condemned already. This does not say, he will be condemned (after death or on the last day), but that he has already been declared to be condemned (as he stands in his condemnation) as a direct result of his unbelief. The fact that he stands condemned is a statement of his being declared condemned. UOJ would have us believe he has been formally and legally declared both condemned and forgiven at the same time.

Moving on, Jn 3:36 tells us that God’s wrath remains on the unbeliever. Again, this does not say that in the end, he will receive God’s wrath, but that God’s wrath is already there, remaining on him. To be clear, this is not man’s guilt and condemnation (judgement) remaining on him, this is God’s wrath (anger, fury) which remains on him. Why would God’s wrath, anger and fury remain on him if God, himself, has declared him to be forgiven in his own sight?

Further, Jn 16:8-9 tells us that the Holy Spirit is at work in the world, among the unbelievers convicting them of their guilt resulting from their unbelief. Yet, UOJ expressly teaches that even the unbeliever’s guilt for sin has been removed (he has been formally declared “not guilty”), he is guilt free. (Note that when I refer to “guilt” here, I am not referring specifically to guilty feelings, I am referring to actual legal guilt vs. innocence.)

Finally, Acts 3:19 gives us the flip-side of the equation. Not only are unbelievers still guilty and condemned before God, but this verse expressly tells us that they still need to have their sins removed as well…they are still lacking in forgiveness as a result of the removal of sin.

In other words, though proponents of UOJ proclaim that there is a supposed law/gospel distinction to be made regarding universal condemnation (law) and supposed universal justification (gospel), this verse negates that possibility (see also Mt 12:31-32 and the unforgivable sin as well as “Does the gospel withheld disprove UOJ?“).

UOC, by itself, disproves UOJ.

Which is more consistent with the entire testimony of Scripture when we allow Scripture to interpret itself, UOJ or JIC?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

What is the Unforgivable Sin/Blasphemy of the Spirit?
Good Lutherans understand that the gift of saving faith is just that…a gift, worked in us through the Holy Spirit by way of the means of grace (the gospel in word and sacrament).

Based upon this firm foundation, when an unbeliever (in their unbelief) rejects this work of the Holy Spirit to bring about saving faith, we can rightly understand this to be blasphemy against that which the Holy Spirit is doing to produce faith – blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, himself.

In other words, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is effectively to exert one’s persistent unbelief. Or, put still another way, to blaspheme the Spirit is to choose to remain in unbelief, while resisting the Holy Spirit’s work to prompt one toward faith.

Having said this, let’s look at what Scripture calls the unforgiven sin. The fist two passages (from Hebrews and Acts) help to set the stage for the additional three passages below.

Setting the Stage

~ Hebrews 10:29 How much more severely do you think a man [who has fallen away from the faith] deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

~ Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

In Hebrews, we see that the one who was formerly a believer (but has fallen away from the faith) has, in reality, insulted the Holy Spirit (Spirit of grace). Further, in Acts, we see that Steven, who is speaking to the Jews just before his stoning, states that to reject the gospel message is to “resist the Holy Spirit.”

This brings us to the words of our Lord who states clearly that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

The Unforgivable Sin

~ Mark 3:28-29 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.”

~ Luke 12:10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

~ Matthew 12:31-32 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 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.

In Mark, we learn that all other sins and blasphemies will be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

In Luke, we learn that 1) anyone who speaks a word against the son will be forgiven, but that 2) anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

Finally, in Matthew, we learn that 1) every sin and blasphemy (including speaking against the son) will be forgiven, but that 2) anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Moreover, we also learn that 3) this lack of forgiveness will be the reality for both this age and the age to come.

UOJ Disproved
This last part is the “nail in the coffin” to disproving UOJ. Jesus makes it very clear that blasphemy against the spirit will NOT be declared forgiven, not only in the age to come, but in this age as well. In other words, the proponent of UOJ would suggest that all people (believer and unbeliever alike) are forgiven, even though the unbeliever will not receive the full benefit of this forgiveness, ultimately in the age to come. But, Matthew not only states that forgiveness will not be realized for the unbeliever in the age to come, but forgiveness will not be granted to him in this age either.

It is as though Jesus is effectively saying that the unbeliever is doubly unforgiven. Maybe Jesus, looking ahead to UOJ, just wanted to make sure everyone was clear on the matter. (Ya, think?)

Law/Gospel Distinction is Misapplied
Moreover, proponents of UOJ like to confuse the debate further by suggesting that according to the law, unbelievers are still condemned, while at the very same time, according the gospel, all (including the unbeliever) have been forgiven. But notice that this passage from Matthew does nothing to suggest that the unbeliever is only condemned according to the law. Rather, in direct refutation of UOJ logic, this passage is expressly stating that the gospel of forgiveness is withheld.

In other words, UOJ would have us believe that the law and the gospel are essentially two sides of the same coin. On one side of the coin the unbeliever is condemned by the law, but on the other side he is forgiven by the gospel….supposedly.

The reality of Scripture, however, is that on one side of the coin the unbeliever is condemned while on the other side he is also not forgiven (see also Acts 3:19).

This passage from Matthew, by itself, emphatically disproves UOJ.

Otherwise, according to the proponent of UOJ, what we are supposed to conclude from this passage in Matthew, is that the reality of what Jesus is saying is, “All sins and blasphemies for all people of all time will be forgiven, even the sin of blasphemy against the Spirit. This forgiveness will be applied to each and every individual, even to the unbeliever. Yet, I tell you, even though this sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is forgiven, it will also never be forgiven in this age or in the age to come.”

Now, I ask you, does this sound like our God of order and justice?

But, What About…?
Some might object, “Ah, but…what about the first half of the above passages, which states that ‘all other blasphemies will be forgiven’? Doesn’t this demonstrate the truth of UOJ?”  “In each of the gospel accounts mentioned above…” The proponent of UOJ might continue to say, “Jesus is doing the talking. Historically speaking, he spoke these words before he went to the cross, so isn’t Jesus saying that once he dies on the cross to pay for all sin, then, at that time, all men will be forgiven for all of their blasphemies?”

Absolutely not!

How do I know?

Because the second half of each passage won’t allow me to come to a typical UOJ conclusion, as I have already explained.

In fact, what both halves of each passage really suggest is the reality of JIC. If all sin is forgiven in Christ, then while the sin is forgiven, the sinner is not…that forgiveness remains in Christ. Only the one who is in Christ receives that forgiveness. The one outside of Christ (due to his persistent resistance of the work of the Holy Spirit – his blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) remains unforgiven.

The unforgivable sin, by itself, disproves UOJ.

But, you’ll have to decide for yourself, seeking the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit, which makes more sense UOJ or JIC?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs

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?

Go Back To Top of List

Go Back To Category Tabs