..."To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:
God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for:
1. either all the sins of all men,
2. or all the sins of some men,
3. or some sins of all men.
If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God entered into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: "If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?" (Ps. cxxx. 2.) We might all go to cast all that we have "to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty," (Isa. ii. 20, 21.)
If the Second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room Suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.
If the first, why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?
You will say, "Because of their unbelief; they will not believe."
But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?
If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not.
If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death?
If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will."
bump
It's a mystery, wrapped up in a conundrum, boxed in an enigma and tied together with a paradox that will take Occam's Razor to undo!
Seems pretty straight forward to me. People sure make this difficult.