Limited Atonement... Unanswerable question.

While studying once in the early 90’s it came to me how simple the matter of limited atonement really was to defend, when proposed in the following question: If Jesus died for souls now in hell, by whose merits do we hope to obtain salvation?

There is only one answer: not HIS; only YOURS. There is simply no way out of it. I have asked this question to dozens of people since then, and have never gotten anything remotely close to a answer, and rarely is it long atempted.

Secondly, those of a universal atonement perspective often like to assert that scripture nowhere teaches a limited atonement, but everywhere speaks of a universal one. While the second claim is likely better deal with in a separate string, yet I would like to propose the following scripture as conclusive scriptural proof that the Lord Jesus died only for His elect.
“29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” (Romans 8:29-32)

Notice verse 32…… It says one thing very clearly: Whoever it was that Jesus died for gets “all things”, and these “things” can ONLY refer to those “things” just mentioned… predestination, calling, justification, and glorification…. i.e., salvation. So if Jesus died for all men, then all are saved, because those for whom he died cannot fail of getting THESE things. Thus we are left with being either Sovereign Grace, or Universalists. That choice should be easy.
The bible is too clear in teaching that MOST men will be eternally damned, therefore, Jesus only died for His elect.

For those who oppose this doctrine, I propose to them that they answer these two questions.
1. Precisely WHAT is the benefit that these shall receive, if not that which is explicitly NAMED….. eternal salvation, from predestination all the way to glorification?
2. To WHOM is this benefit applied, if not to those explicitly NAMED in the text, those for whom Christ “gave Himself”?

I remind the respondent that a direct answer the two questions that are here asked is alone pertinent.

G4G

 

It was said:
"The love that God has for people is unprejudiced. He loves all people relative to their final salvation. His foreknowledge indicates that He has always known who would hear the Gospel and believe in His only begotten Son. Those who believe become His elect and are and were forknown to the Triune Godhead. No where in Scripture does it say that God hand picks His elect and neither does it indicate that He purposefully damns any human being."

The problem withthis perspective is that 1. It turns God's election into an election of GOD by MEN, when the bible incontrovertably teaches the exact opposite. Its just a fancy way to turn the meaning on its head. 2. The proposition is UTTERLY and EXPLICITLY denied in Rom.9 "For the children, being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth". (From memory... so may not be just right) This doesn't answer some similar question... it answers this EXACT question. Did God take into consideration the works of men in electing THEM. NO.

It was said:
"No where in Scripture does it say that God hand picks His elect and neither does it indicate that He purposefully damns any human being."

I find my self re-reading this a few times to see if it really says what it seems to... nowhere does it say that God hand picks His elect? Well.... who is it then that ELECTS them, and how do you ELECT someone without HAND PICKING them? If God ELECTS ANYONE then they are hand picked. And God doesn't purposfully damn anyone? What then? Does he do it by accident? Because damned they be! So does God throw them into hell and say, "oops! there goes another one! Sorry pal... didn't mean to"! REALLY!
All such talk is to make light of sin, and of the horrid plight that humanity is in. God is angry with the wicked every day, and hates all workers of iniquity. When you depreciate sin you depreciate the GRACE that redeems men from it. God is in dead earnest in His threats against impenitent humanity, and it is to be guilty of the blood of men not to tell this part of the counsel of God. Isaiah 63:3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. That sounds rather purposeful to me,I'd reckon.

G4G

 

It was said:
"Those who are currently in hell are there by their own merits in spite of the fact that Christ's death on the cross was sufficient to pay for all the sin of the entire world."

Why men are in hell is not the question. The question is why are men in HEAVEN. Please reread, and post reply to the question.

It was said:
"The problem with trying to limit the suffering of Jesus in "quantity" to be exactly enough to pay for the sins of the elect is that the suffering required for only one person's sin is infinite. That is why hell will last for eternity. Therefore Christ somehow suffered infinitely on the cross. An infinite amount is enough to pay for all as well as one."

I respectfully disagree with my brethren who hold that Christ's sacrifice was "sufficient for all, efficient for some". I feel that were one more person elected after the cross there would had to have been another atonement for them. Yourargument holds water ONLY if the suffering of Jesus Christ... GOD... is wholly equal in merit to the suffering of damnable sinners... a rather big IF.

It was said:
"In the passage you pointed out, notice in verse 29 that the predestination is based entirely on foreknowledge. God, being an infinite God, absolutely knows who will be saved. That is entirely different than God making the decision for the person."
I have answered this in the post immediately above this one... and besides.... you don't answer the questions again: What was the benefit? Who was it for?

G4G

 

It was said:
"And that's your problem! I'll be glad to answer your question. The verse says he gave him up for us all. This in no way, shape, or form, directly or indirectly implies "us all and no one else." Because "us" gets all things - that is, those who have believed, it makes sense in parallel construction, used so often in Greek, that Paul used dying for us. There are several SCriptures that state Christ died for all. We can either say that all doesn't mean all, which requires exegetical dishonesty or ignorance, or we can see that passages like this do not exclude anyone else. I can say "Christ died for you!" and not exclude that he died for me as well."

Your reply to question one, what is the benefit, is that of salvation. Your reply to question two, to whom does it apply, is EVERYONE. So you are a UNIVERSALIST. This is the only conclusion your argument reaches.

It was said:
"Most? You better watch out - the Calvinists on this board think that the majority of people will be in Heaven. You better take that up with him. "Us" are the ones who receive "these things" - again - it's not excluding anyone. "

I doubt that most "Calvinists" feel that most people are going to heaven. If they do, I disagree strongly. Jesus said there are few that be saved. Secondly, your claim that the verse does not exclude anyone is begging the question. The benefit is for those for whom Christ died. If Christ only died for the elect, then some are excluded. If not, then they are not. But that is what you are trying to prove, and you cannot assume your argument in your attempted proof of it.

In reply to the two questions:
"The benefit is applied to those who believe, that is, the church."
That is only to answer one of the two questions, and it is undeniably NOT the answer the text gives. Furthermore, you said in your first post that the benefit applies to everyone... universalism.

G4G