From One We Can Judge The Rest

Great article. But I do have one question. If Christ paid for all the sins of all mankind, is the sin of unbelief also paid for? Because I have not always believed, I need for Christ to pay for that sin as well. Well if He did pay for that sin for everybody, then there is no difference between those who believe and those who don't. Both have had the sin of unbelief paid for. Then who then goes to hell?

First I will say that I'm not the author of this article, so I can't speak for him.

However, I must ask this, when you say:

"Well if He did pay for that sin for everybody, then there is no difference between those who believe and those who don't. Both have had the sin of unbelief paid for. Then who then goes to hell?"

Are you making a distinction between atonement and justification, or do you believe they are one in the same?

Anonymous,

As with all issues of faith, we must put aside our vain depraved reason and only be guided by the clear objective verifiable Word of God. From the Word of God, we can say that Christ died for all sins, including the sin of unbelief. In fact, all sins are really sins of unbelief. John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin (singular) if the world" (John 1:29). Christ took the whole lump. And the Apostle John says that "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). So that point is conclusive.

Now the same Apostle John says in the same Epistle, "There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." (1 John 5:16). And Jesus said in Matthew, "whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." (Matt. 12:32). So, we can say conclusively that there is a sin unto death that is unforgiveable, even though Jesus paid for all sins for all men for all time. That sin is persistent unbelief in Christ and His atoning work despite the clear testimony of the Holy Ghost in the Holy Scriptures.

Now, what do we say to this seeming paradox? We say what Drew said above, that there is a distinction between the atonement of Christ which was universal and remains true whether a man believes it or not, and the application of that atonement which necessarily must come to the lost sinner via the means of faith. The Lutheran theologians make a distinction between the objective justification of the whole world in Christ and the subjective justification that applies only to those who believe, that is, to true Christians.

So to summarize, in answer to your question, we would say that Christ died for all sins, including the sin of unbelief. However, because of the unique nature of the sin of unbelief (in Christ's atonement), this sin, if persisted in, is at some point unforgiveable because it closes the avenue of faith which is the only means by which the forgiveness of all sins can be received. While the sin of unbelief is paid for and forgiven in God's sight, it cannot be received by the lost sinner, and thus he dies without it.

In your case, if you now believe that Christ died for your sins based upon the saving Gospel Word that He died for the sins of all, then you are saved. However, if your faith in Christ's death is not derived from the Word of God then it will prove false - since there is only one true saving Gospel. The fact that you did not believe before makes no diffeence, as the unforgiveable sin is persistent hardened unbelief which in God's sight is confirmed unbelief.

I trust that you are sincere in your question and not just trying to bait us as the unbelieving Jews tried to bait Christ. But assuming the best of you, as a Christian should, I hope this is a helpful answer to you.

God's blessings,

Pastor Wood

Unfortunately you are most definitely wrong concerning the doctrinal purity of the Australian ELCR. They are wrong on justification, holding to the Missouri Synod's false Objective and Subjective Justifications; against which Ichabod constantly protests.

The ELCR also have a very legalistic teaching and practice view on women's dress lengths, women not wearing slacks (trousers), and the necessity of women wearing hats.

The LCR - based in the US - had doctrinal talks with the Australian ELCR some years back, with whom they share the false UOJ/SJ doctrine, but fellowship talks broke down over the latter mentioned areas.

Hi Toni,

The ELCR is correct on the issues of distinctive dress (Deut. 22:5) and the women's headcovering in public worship (1 Cor. 11:2-16). I'd be willing to send you material that easily and clearly establishes those points. Also, "legalism" is seeking to establish your own righteousness through your own works. This the ELCR does not do, neither with these issues nor with any other issues. Rather these are issues of Christian righteousness, that is, "observing all things whatsoever that Jesus commanded us" out of love and gratitude for what He has done for us.


As to your other issue, I have never heard of this issue of objective and subjective justification as a problem. Can you please elaborate on what you regard as the error there so that I might better be able to consider your point?

Thanks so much,

Stuart Wood

Hi Stuart.

I have not seen ELCR's statments as yet. We have here the AELC whose statements I have seen. Without seeing ELCR's statements, I was not surprized with Toni's comments but I do like to see their official statements. AELC has one and there I have identified their UOJ formal statements, of which LCAus has none.

Legalism does not only pertain to setting up one's righteousness, IMHO, it also pertains to persecuting those that do not conform.

LPC