Colossians 2:13-14 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
The Subjective Justification Card
Here, the proponent of UOJ will plainly state that the first half of the passage is referring to the subjective aspect of UOJ, while the second half is referring to the objective aspect.
Mmmm, is it just me or is that a pretty convenient way of reading Scripture in…it’s…context…sort of?
Think about it. If you were not already viewing this passage through the lens of UOJ, would you ever come up with UOJ by pulling meaning from the text?
This passage serves as a classic example of 2 serious problems with poor UOJ interpretation, 1) imposing meaning upon the text, rather than pulling meaning from the text and 2) whipping out the subjective justification card when Scripture does not fit with UOJ.
Repeatedly, I have seen instances when the Scriptures (or the Lutheran Confessions) do not support or otherwise openly deny UOJ, where the proponent of UOJ will simply say, “Well, that’s just talking about the subjective aspect of UOJ.”
Rather than clearly seeing the truth for what it is, the proponent of UOJ insists upon covering his eyes and falling back on subjective justification. This is part of the reason, it is so incredibly difficult to help the proponent of UOJ to see this false doctrine for what it is. Often times, so many who reject UOJ, point to a number of biblical passages and/or confessional quotes and say, “See, it’s obvious. Scripture and/or the Confessions teach justification by faith.” To which the proponent of UOJ simply replies, “Well, of course! That’s just referring to the subjective aspect of UOJ.” This is part of the reason why I have attempted to take a different approach on this site, but I digress.
It’s All About Pronouns
“Ahh, but look at the change in pronouns.” The proponent of UOJ might say.
Okay, let’s do that. Let’s look at the passage again.
~ Colossians 2:13-14 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
Yes, there is a change in pronouns. Paul goes from speaking about you and your to speaking of us and our.
Decide for yourself which makes more sense.
Paul is speaking to the Colossians about the Colossians, then adds other believers into the discussion, whether it be 1) Paul simply adding himself to the discussion or 2) adding himself and anyone else with him as he writes this letter to the Colossians or 3) adding himself and all believers to the discussion. Any way you look at it, everyone Paul is referring to is a believer.
Or…
Should we understand Paul’s words to mean (as proponents of UOJ would have us believe) he is speaking to the Colossians about the Colossians, then switches gears entirely and starts speaking of the whole world, believers and unbelievers alike.
Now, on the surface you might conclude it could go either way. And, it could. So, let’s run with that. If this is the case (it could go either way), then UOJ is not proved here, at best, it is speculated instead. Remember the burden of proof falls on the proponent of UOJ.
A MUCH BIGGER Problem!
If we conclude that Paul switches to speaking of the whole world (including the unbeliever), it’s not enough to hear Paul speaking of UOJ, we have to take seriously all that Paul says about the unbeliever. Here is the passage once again.
~ Colossians 2:13-14 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
Let this sink in.
If there is no longer a written code with any regulations; if there is nothing against or standing opposed; if all has been fully taken away from the unbeliever, then what is left to condemn him by the law?
Keep thinking. Keep letting this sink in.
If there is nothing left to condemn him by the law, then here are some logical conclusions we could come to regarding each and every unbeliever:
1. He cannot be condemned by the law, though in theory he could be condemned by his unbelief without the condemnation of the law per-se.
2. Though, if the unbeliever is condemned by his unbelief, rather than by the law, then this disproves the law/gospel distinction argument (Category 1 – Questions 4 & 5) put forth by proponents of UOJ. One cannot be (according to the argument) forgiven by the gospel, yet stand condemned by the law (when the law has been taken away). UOJ logic is then proved faulty.
3. Further, if the unbeliever is somehow not condemned by his unbelief, yet there is also no law against him (through universalism, for example), then this too disproves the law/gospel distinction argument. UOJ logic is still proved faulty.
4. Let’s go the other direction. If the proponent of UOJ insists on clinging to his law/gospel argument, then (to be consistent) he must let go of this passage as a UOJ proof passage. UOJ logic is proved faulty and the proponent of UOJ is proved to have read UOJ into the text of Scripture rather than drawing it from Scripture.
5. Finally, if there is no law against the unbeliever and if he does not stand condemned by his unbelief (point 3 above) then universalism must be true. UOJ logic is proved exceedingly faulty as well as contradictory since proponents of UOJ openly reject universalism. (Actually, there is one other theoretical possibility I could think of…the unbeliever could theoretically be condemned by his inherent sinful condition, but the believer is made new in spirit/born again – made morally perfect/righteous in Christ – as discussed in Category 1 – Question 7, when faith is granted. This fact ultimately just brings us back to the previously mentioned possibility of the unbeliever being condemned due to his unbelief – as one who has NOT been made new/born again. If this whole parenthetical thought only adds to your confusion :-o, forget everything I just said inside these parentheses).
No matter how you look at it, it seems the proponent of UOJ, just can’t win with this proof passage!
Almost Done, But Not Before It Gets Worse
While these possibilities may be a lot to absorb, these are logical conclusions to be drawn, if we read UOJ into the text and assume the second half of the passage refers to the whole word (including the unbeliever).
Ahh, but let’s think about that for a moment. If the proponent of UOJ thinks these things through and is honest about the conclusions, then he must concede that this is not a valid proof passage in support of UOJ.
Yet, if he concedes that he (and every other proponent of UOJ who uses this proof text – which is commonly used) has, indeed, read UOJ into the text, then he is admitting that he has been reading UOJ into the text of Scripture – seeing and proclaiming as truth, that which just isn’t there (is falsehood). He (and/or others in his camp), has also been disfellowshipping others based upon poor interpretation of Scripture.
In other words, this is a major lose – lose proposition for the proponent of UOJ.
Once again, in further context of Colossians, as well as in the included context of the passage, anyone who is honest with the text can plainly see that Paul is referring to believers, those whom God has “made alive” with Christ as Col 2:13 clearly states.
So, what do you think…does UOJ or JIC work best here?
I know I said I would keep these Proof Passage discussions as brief as possible (and this one was originally much shorter), but the end result of drawing logical conclusions, made a lengthy explanation necessary for this “proof.” I’ve tried to keep the others shorter than this one.