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?
You may be wondering why I’ve included questions about both the unforgivable sin and the gospel withheld, when both seem so similar.
Well, there is certainly overlap between these two questions as well as the question regarding the Ministry of the Keys. Scripture speaks against UOJ in a number of similar, yet distinct, ways. Essentially, the unforgivable sin is, indeed, an example of the gospel withheld, but it is an extreme example where Jesus emphatically declares that those who commit this sin, will not only be unforgiven in the age to come, but are already unforgiven in this age as well.
Moreover, though proponents of UOJ have sometimes heard (and responded to) the objection that the unforgivable sin disproves UOJ by claiming a law/gospel distinction, to the best of my knowledge, no one has made the argument that the unforgivable sin specifically stands as an example of the gospel withheld (lack of gospel), not just an example of the sinner’s condemnation (law).
In other words, the unforgivable sin not only speaks of the unbeliever’s condemnation, but more specifically of his lack of forgiveness. He cannot be forgiven and expressly unforgiven at the same time. The unforgivable sin expressly speaks of the sinner as being without forgiveness (without the gospel) rather than his being condemned (under the law).
Therefore, 1) due to the fact that the unforgivable sin is a somewhat common objection to UOJ (and a strong objection at that) as well as 2) the fact that the gospel withheld is a seemingly new slant on the unforgivable sin (in addition to other Bible passages which speak of the unbeliever’s lack of forgiveness – rather than his condemnation), I felt both subjects deserved their own Q & A.
So, what is the difference between the unforgivable sin and the gospel withheld? Well, the gospel withheld does not necessarily refer to the unforgivable sin, but the unforgivable sin is one example of the gospel withheld.
Now, onto our next similar/related subject, the “Ministry of the Keys.”
Go Back To Top of List
Go Back To Category Tabs
