header image
Home arrow Griffin's History arrow Daily/Throgmorton Debate-First Speech
Daily/Throgmorton Debate-First Speech PDF Print E-mail
Written by Daily/Throgmorton   

Held at the Missionary Baptist College in Ewing, III.,
August 13, 14, 15, 16, 1912.
Eld. C. W. Radcliff; Eld. G. W. Danbury
Miss Carrie 13. Parish, Harrisburg, Ill.
Indianapolis, Ind.




PROPOSITION I. The Scriptures teach that all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved.


Affirmative, JOHN R. DAILY,

Negative, W. P. THROGMORTON.


PROPOSITION II. The Scriptures teach that God employs the Preaching of the Gospel as a Means in the Regeneration of sinners.


Affirmative, W. P. THROGMORTON,

Negative, JOHN R. DAILY.



I. The two propositions agreed cussed by the disputants at Ewing, Ill, beginning August 13, 1912, and continuing four days, two days to be given to the discussion of each proposition.

II. There shall be two sessions each day, of two hours each, occupying from 10 o’clock a. m. to 2 o’clock p. m.

III. In the opening of each subject the affirmant shall occupy one hour, and the respondent the same time: and thereafter half hour alternately to the dose of the subject.

IV. On the final negative no new matter shall be introduced except in reply to what shall have been introduced in the closing affirmative for the first time.

V. There shall be chosen a board of three Moderators, the disputants to choose one each and they to choose a third*, who shall be Moderator of the board and President Moderator of the debate.

VI. Hedge’s Rules of Logic shall be the Rules of Decorum of the speakers, which are as follows :—

1. The terms in which the question in debate is ex pressed, and the point at issue, should be clearly defined, that there could be no misunderstanding respecting them.

2. The parties should mutually consider each other as standing on a footing of equality, in respect to the subject in debate. Each should regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and a desire for the truth with himself. And that it is possible, therefore, that he may be in the wrong and his adversary in the right.

3. All expressions which are unmeaning, or without effect, in regard to the subject in debate, should be carefully avoided.

4. Personal reflections on an adversary should, in no instance, be indulged.

5. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them.

6. As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of controversy, whatever argument may be advanced on either side should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to answer an adversary by arts of sophistry, or to lessen the force of his reasoning by wit, cavilling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy.

 *It was mutually agreed ‘to conduct the debate ‘without a President Moderator.






Gentlemen Moderators, Worthy Opponent, Ladies and Gentlemen:

Our continued existence as living beings under the protecting and supporting hand of God, and the blessings that fall to us incessantly from his bountiful hand bear testimony to the riche of his mercy and obligate us to confess with humility that these favors on our part are wholly unmerited.

We have met this morning for the purpose of entering upon the investigation of the sacred word of God, relative to some m points of doctrine about which we honestly differ, and I trust we have met in the spirit of our Divine Master. As I approach the duty of delivering the first address of this debate and thus introducing it, I am not insensible of the great weight of responsibility that attends this undertaking. Were it not for the confidence I have in the strength of my cause, I am sure I would tremble as I approach this important task.

There are two considerations, however, that give no room for fear on my part. One is, if I am right, which; of course, I sincerely think I am, I have no need to fear. The other is, if I should be wrong and my opponent succeeds in convincing me that I am, he confers a favor upon me, for which I am sure I shall ever remain thankful.

The proposition we have agreed to discuss is, as read in your hearing: “The Scriptures teach that all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved.”

I had been informed that the atonement was one subject that it was desired we should discuss, and I insisted in our correspondence that the word atonement should be in the proposition. To this, my worthy opponent objected and worded the proposition as it now stands. I accepted the wording of this proposition because my opponent said in the correspondence that, in the sense of propitiation or expiation, he believes that Christ died for all the human race. That affords a key to the position he is expected to take on the negative of this proposition, and so assists us in determining its meaning, as worded by him.

One of the rules by which we have agreed to be governed in this discussion requires that I define the terms of my proposition so that there may be no misunderstanding respecting them.

By the Scriptures I mean the Bible, the Sacred Word of God, the books that go to make up what we denominate the Old and New Testaments. I shall depend upon that sacred volume to prove the proposition and all the arguments that I shall make in support of it. Any reference that I may make to other writings will be merely as argument and not as proof.

By the Scriptures teaching that all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved, I mean that the Scriptures taken as a whole, when properly interpreted, teach that idea.

By all for whom Christ died, I mean, of course, those for whom he suffered on the cross, for whom he made propitiation on the cross, or expiation.

The term propitiation is a Bible term. It is found three times in the New Testament: I John 2:2, I John 4:10, Rom. 3:2-4.

The idea expressed by this word is taught, however, in many places. That word is from the Greek word hilasmos which means the extinguishing of guilt. The Greek verb is hilaskomai. Expiate is from kathairo which means a cleansing. I want to remark here that my pretentions in regard to languages are humble; that whatever reference I may make to Greek or Hebrew words will be made in order that the original idea intended to be expressed may be brought out more clearly, if possible, than the English words express. From the original of the word atonement, propitiation and expiation, the point at issue is, as expressed by the proposition and the statement of my opponent: The Scriptures teach that all for whom Christ died, for whom he made reconciliation by extinguishing their guilt on the cross, purifying and cleansing them by his death, his blood and his sufferings for them, will be eternally saved. That the death of Jesus Christ is in no sense a failure, but that it will ultimately accomplish the design of the Father who sent him to live and to die for sinners.

I have three questions which I wish to submit in the beginning to which I invite the attention of my worthy opponent.

My first question is: What does the death of Christ, apart from everything else, accomplish in the salvation of sinners for whom he died? For instance, what does the death of Christ for sinners, who never hear the Gospel preached, accomplish in the work of their eternal salvation?

My second question is : Did Christ die for sinners really and absolutely as a substitute; that is, did he take the place of sinners in dying for them? Was his death for them vicarious or not? The answer that I desire to this question is either Yes or No. If Brother Throgmorton does not believe that Christ died for sinners as a substitute, he is expected to say No in answer to the question. If he does believe that Jesus Christ died for sinners as a substitute, he is expected to say Yes to the question. If he thinks the question will get him in a close place, he is expected to give an evasive answer.

My third question to which I invite my opponent’s attention is: Did Christ die for sinners in order to make the eternal salvation of all he died for possible on condition of faith?

Now my purpose in asking these three questions is that we may bring out early in the discussion of this important proposition some issues clearly before the people.        

My first argument in support of my proposition is that the death of Christ was necessary in order to the eternal salvation of sinners, and, being necessary to that end, it was designed to accomplish it. For what ever is necessary to an end is designed to accomplish that end. To ascertain the design of the Saviour in any undertaking of his, we have but to ascertain the final results of that undertaking. As God is all-wise, and as God is all-powerful we are forced to the conclusion that whatever he designed in any undertaking of his will be accomplished; and that therefore, to ascertain his design we have but ascertain the final results. Now to ascertain the design of the death of Christ on the cross for sinners, we have but to ascertain the final results of his death for sinners.

If his design for sinners was not their eternal salvation, what was it? I maintain that the design was the eternal salvation of the sinners for whom he died. So that when we ascertain the final results of his death we will have ascertained the design.

When I think of God, whose name is “I am,” the self-existent one, who is from everlasting to everlasting, the Almighty God, as knowing all things, I cannot associate with such an idea of God any idea of a failure upon his part. The design of Christ’s dying was the salvation of sinners and their final deliverance from this present evil world according to God’s will.

Matt. 18:11. “For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost.”

I Thess. 5:9-10. “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.”         

Gal. 1:3 “Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God our Father.”

God’s design in Christ’s dying for sinners was their eternal salvation from sin and their deliverance according to his will. His design is to be measured by its final results. Therefore, all for whom Christ died will he eternally saved.

My second argument is founded upon the annunciation of the coming birth of Christ by the angel to Joseph:

“Thou shall call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins” Matt. 1:21.

Since he will cave his people from their sins, he will not save more than his people; he will not save fewer than his people. He will save inst that many. All whom he will save are reckoned as his people before they are saved before he died for them, even before he came into the world. Since his people is a class synonymous with the very people that will he eternally saved, to determine the former will be to ascertain definitely the latter and vice versa. It was not his mission to try to save them, or to give them a chance to save themselves, or to enable someone else to save them, but to save them himself. He is the only Saviour of sinners. To save them, it was necessary that he should die for them. In dying for them, he saw them, all of them, all for whom he died, as his seed or people.

Isa, 53:10. “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands.”

Mark you, my friends, it is declared here that Jesus in dying on the cross should see his seed as he died. He saw all he died for as he was dying for them. Then all he died for are his seed. The pleasure of the Lord, the Almighty Father, in regard to his death, shall prosper in his hands. What is that pleasure? It is expressed in the language of the angel that heads this argument: “He shall save his people from their sins.” It follows as a conclusion that all for whom he died, all whom he saw as his seed or people, all meant by the angel announcing his coming birth, whom he came to save, will be eternally saved. Jesus came down from heaven, he tells us, on the great mission of doing the will of his Father. Now he either did the will of his Father or he did not the will of his Father. We can but conclude that he did the will of his Father. He declares the will of his Father to be that of all he has given me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day. In the tenth chapter of St. John he says:

“My Father which gave them me is greater than all. None shall be able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.”

He says: “I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of my Father that sent me; that of all he hath given me I shall lose nothing.” He declares that he laid down his life for the sheep. Therefore, all he laid down his life for will be eternally saved.


My third argument is based upon the love of the Father that sent Christ to die, that caused Christ to die for sinners, and that caused God to quicken them and put his love in their hearts, from which love nothing shall ever separate them. I want you to get that argument. I want to impress it upon your minds. It was God’s love for the sinners for whom Christ died, all of them, that caused him to send Christ to die for them. It was the love that Christ had for those very sinners whom the Father loved that caused him to die for them, and that same love that God has for those sinners for whom Christ died causes God to quicken those sinners, and from that love nothing shall ever separate one of them. It was the Father’s love then for all for whom Christ died, for each one of them he died for, that caused him to send Christ to die for them.

I John 4:9-10. “In this was manifest the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him. Herein Is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”

Now what caused Cod to send him to be a propitiation for our sins? This text informs us that it was God’s love that caused him to do that. Is there any discrimination here? Does not God love all for whom he sent Christ to die, alike? If not, my Opponent will tell me how the discrimination appears.

Romans 5:8. “But God commendeth his love toward us, In that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

How did God commend his love? By Christ dying. What love was commended toward us?

I John 3:16. “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us.”

This is the love that God had for the “children of the promise.”

Romans 9:8. “That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

They are represented by Jacob in the lesson Paul gives us, in which he quotes the language of Jehovah: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Rom. 9:13. This proves that when Jesus said God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son, he did not mean all the people in the world, all the members of the human family. Universalism and Conditionalism are both answered by the Apostle in this declaration. The theory of Universalism falls before this argument. The theory of Conditionalism falls where Universalism falls. Both go down before what my opponent will never be able to answer.

This same love which the lather had for those for whom Christ died was the love which Christ had for them himself, which caused him to consent to die for them, and moved him to suffer in their stead.

Eph. 5:25. “Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it.”

Jesus’ death is the effect of the overflowing, infinite love on the Father’s part, for the ones for whom he died. It was the gratuitous outflow of that love. That love also swelled the bosom of Christ as he took their nature upon himself and came down here to live and die for them. As he suffered upon the cross he loved them, every one of them exactly alike, for whom he was dying. If not, my friend will show where the discrimination comes in. This same love caused the Father to quicken them by his Holy Spirit.

Eph. 2:4-5. “But God who is rich In mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we wore dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ.”

When did he quicken them? Was it when they repented of their sins and believed in Christ? No, it was when they were dead in sins, when they were as far from him as they could be. It was not any merit in them but his love for them while they hated him, that caused him to quicken them. As it is his love while they were dead sinners, while they hated him, that caused him to quicken them, and as he loved all for whom Christ died it follows that he will quicken all for whom Christ died; if not, my friend will tell us why. I insist upon his telling us why. I repeat the question: If God by his love does not quicken all for whom Christ died, having loved all of them alike, why doesn’t he quicken all, since when lie quickens them they were dead, had been dead to that very moment in trespasses and in sins, and therefore enemies of God in their affections.

Summary of the argument: Love for all for whom Christ died caused the Father to send Christ to die for them. This shows he loved them all alike. The love Christ had for them was the cause of Christ dying for them. This love is the cause of God quickening them by his Spirit. As he loves them, all of them alike, he will quicken all of them. Nothing shall ever separate those whom God loves from that love. To prove, this I call your attention to Romans 8:35-39:

“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ; shall tribulations, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or naked ness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter, Nay in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus the Lord.”

Nothing shall separate those for whom Christ died from the love of God which is in Christ; therefore, they shall be eternally saved.


My fourth argument is based on the work of Christ as Mediatorial Priest. As Prophet, Priest and King, Christ stands as a Mediator between God, the offended party, and man, the offender. The word mediator is from the Latin word mesos, which means middle, one that acts between two adverse parties to reconcile them. The High Priest of the Mosaic Priesthood, who was a type of Christ, was a mediator admitted from among men to stand before God to make a propitiation for them by sacrifice and then intercede for those for whom sacrifice was made. So Christ, the anti-type, was the High Priest of those he represented and for whom he offered himself a sacrifice and for whom he makes intercession at the right hand of God.

Heb. 1:1-3. “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”.

In purging those for whom he died, the purging” of those for whom he died was when he offered himself a sacrifice for them. This, my friend will not dare dispute. After offering himself a sacrifice for them and at that time purging them from their sins, he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, for them. This I dare my worthy opponent to dispute.

He purged those for whom he died when he died for them and then sat down to intercede for them.

A priest in making his priestly offering could not sit down until the offering was accomplished. Jesus Christ could not have sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high if he had not purged the sins of those for whom he died. His death as a purging for their sins was accepted by God the Father, at whose right hand he sat down to intercede for them. This purging stood in the mind and purpose of God as a satisfaction for their sins by God, his being received as their intercessor being proof of the satisfaction thus rendered.

Offerings under the Jewish economy were always sanctified or set apart for the ones for whom they were offered, whether for an individual or a nation. So Christ sanctified himself as an offering for those for whom he died, those the Father had given him.

John 17:19. “And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth,”

“Through the truth” is not from dia aeneias but from en aeneia. It is dia with the dative, not dia with genitive. The meaning according to the original is not through the truth as a means but in a true manner. That is, Christ sanctified himself and offered himself, that those for whom he died might be sanctified truly and not typically, as under the Levitical Priesthood.

Having given himself for those for whom he died, he has entered into the Holy Place to represent them as an intercessor, those for whom he died.

Heb. 9:12. “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”

Rom. 8:33-34. “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justified his elect. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died—for his elect. Yea, rather, that is risen again—for his elect. He represents them at the right hand of God, his elect; who also maketh intercession for his elect.”

In reading that text I put the proper interpretation upon it, which I defy him to dispute.

As Aaron bore the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, those he represented, making sacrifice for them and acting as their intercessor, thus purging them typically, so Christ, the glorious anti-type, bears the names of all for whom he died as a sacrifice, on the breastplate of his love and intercedes for them continually as their High Priest above, while as King he sends the Holy Spirit to quicken them and assure them of his success as their Mediator who obtained eternal redemption for them on the cross.

Christ and the Holy Spirit act with one consent together, the work of one being a complement to that of the other. Christ intercedes for those for whom he died, as an advocate in heaven, and the Holy Spirit quickens them and becomes an advocate within to bear witness with their spirits that they are the children of God. The atonement and intercession of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit cannot fail. Therefore, all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved.


My fifth argument is based on this: That the death of Christ for sinners was in order to the forgiveness of their sins, being designed to that end. In dying for sinners, he gave up his life for their sins, and the intention must have been to procure the forgiveness of those sins.

The typical offerings made by the Levitical Priest hood invariably secured the temporal forgiveness of those for whom they were made, whether the offerings were for the whole congregation or for individuals. In every case of the offering of the beast or bird, by slaying it, an atonement was made by its blood for the very person or persons for whom it was slain, be they one or many; and by this means forgiveness was, under the old law, invariably secured.

Lev. 4:20. “And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.”

This was for the sin of the whole congregation of Israel; so it should be forgiven the whole congregation of Israel because the offering was made for the whole congregation of Israel.

Lev 4:26. “And the priest shall make an atonement for him a concerning his sin, and It shall be forgiven him.”

This refers to the sin of a ruler. The same statement is made in the thirty-first and thirty-fifth verses of this chapter and the tenth and sixteenth verses of the fifth chapter, and in every place where offerings made for sin are mentioned. I argue that as it was in the type, so it is in the anti-type. Jesus said, when he instituted the Supper, “For this is my blood in the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Matt. 26:28.

Will the shedding of his precious blood fail? No! a thousand times No! It cannot fail. As certain as the offerings of the Jewish priests secured the forgiveness in a figure for all for whom those offerings were mad as God declared they should, that certain is it that the sufferings Jesus endured in dying shall result in the forgiveness of all for whom he died, as in the quotation just made. In confirmation of this the Apostle declares, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.” Eph. 1 :7 and Col. 1 :14.

Here the forgiveness of sins is placed in apposition to redemption through his blood, signifying the same thing. So in Christ’s redemption of those for whom he died he obtained forgiveness of their sins.

Now the sweet experience of this forgiveness is felt by the sinner when the love, the forgiving love of God, is shed abroad in his heart. The blessing of Christ is the unmistakable evidence of that fact. Christ obtained forgiveness of sins for all for whom he died. All for whom forgiveness was obtained will be eternally saved. Therefore, all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved.


My sixth argument is that the death of Christ was a ransom paid for sinners intended to redeem them. That ransom price was God’s own provision for the redemption of the sinners for whom Christ died, and therefore it cannot fail.

Ransom is, a word corrupted from the Latin redemptio. It is the price paid by a prisoner of war, or a price paid by others in his behalf, on consideration of his being granted freedom to be able to return to his own country. And promise of the freedom of the person to be ransomed must be understood before the ransom is paid. In early times, when armies received little or no pay, the soldiers looked for their reward in the booty they might capture, and this booty included the bodies of the persons as well as the chattels of the prisoners. We have some notable instances in history. King Richard I was ransomed by the payment of 100,000 pounds, King John of France for 500,000 pounds, David Bruce of Scotland by payment of 100,000 marks. The payment of the ransom insured the release of the captive. The Greek word is lutron from luo, to loosen, unbind, unfasten, set free, set at liberty. The life of Christ was given as a ransom for all those for whom he died.

Matt. 20:28, “And to give his life a ransom for many.” Ransom is here from lutron the accusatic form. The preposition for is from anti. Many is from the Greek word pollon, anti signifies over against, answering to, in place of, in retribution for or return for. Lutron means a ransom paid to release from bondage or captivity.

The death of Christ for sinners, the shedding of his blood, is the ransom price paid, by which those for whom he died are said to be purchased or redeemed.

I Cor. 6:20. “For, ye are bought with a price; there fore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.”

What is the price? It is the priceless shed blood of the blessed Jesus. That is the full price. That is God’s accepted price, to which there needs be no addition, to which there can be made no addition, which satisfies God in behalf of those for whom Christ died.

Acts 20: 28. “Feed the church of God, which he bath purchased with his own blood.”

I Peter 1:18-19. “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Iamb without blemish and without spot.”

Redeemed. how? Not with corruptible things, as silver and gold. What does God care for your money? Then what with? With the precious blood of Christ. In accordance with that the saved hosts sing a new cong, as declared in Rev. 5:9. “And they sung a new song, saying: Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

Consider the greatness of the price. It was the giving up of the life of the Son of God, whose personal dignity as the “Ancient of days,” gave transcendent merit to his death. When Paul says, “Who shall condemn?” and immediately answered: “It is Christ that died,” the great stress of the argument’ lies in the absolute certainty of redemption as a necessary result of the payment of such a price as a ransom of infinite merit. If the payment of such a price should fail to secure the everlasting salvation of any for whom it was paid, the failure would be to the everlasting shame and disgrace of the omnipotent one who proposed to accept the prize and of the obedient one, the suffering one who paid it. There can be no more God-dishonoring doctrine than that which teaches that some for whom Christ died will be eternally lost. It says his blood was spilt in vain. It charges him and the everlasting Father with both failure and falsehood. It says the law demands two payments for the same offense. It treads the Son of God under foot, counts the blood of the everlasting covenant an unholy thing, and does despite to the Spirit of Grace. That the redemption of what was purchased follows the payment of the price as a ransom is clearly declared by the Apostle:

Titus 2:13-14. “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”

Can redemption be for any one who is never redeemed? Can a price be paid as a ransom and the ransom not be consummated? These are important questions to which I demand an answer. Can such a price be paid for sinners and yet only a part of those sinners be redeemed? To that question I would like for my opponent to answer yes or no. Can the judge be satisfied, justice be met, and the prisoners, any of them, remain forever enthralled?

Christ obtained this redemption when he died, be cause he then paid the price by which it was obtained.

Heb. 9:12. “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, hay lug obtained eternal redemption for us.”

How did they obtain eternal redemption? The ransom price was paid by the death of Christ for all for whom he died, by which he obtained eternal redemption for them. All for whom the ransom price was paid will be eternally saved because that was paid as the price of their eternal redemption. Therefore, all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved.

“Dear dying Lamb, thy precious blood

Shall never lose its power,

Till all the ransomed church of God

Be saved to sin no more.”


My seventh argument in support of my proposition is: That salvation by the life of Christ is sure to follow reconciliation by his death.

Now, if I can prove that salvation, by Christ, insures our reconciliation, and that salvation was accomplished at the time he died, proved my proposition beyond dispute, and my brother will forever fail to meet the argument.

Romans 5: 6-10: “For when we were yet without strength, In due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for righteous man will one die; yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, In that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”

The act of reconciling is here ascribed to the death of Christ. It was declared to be done when the sinners for whom he died were enemies, ungodly ones, and sinners without strength. It does not say they were reconciled when they became God’s friends, when they repented and believed on Christ, but when they were enemies. All for whom Christ died were reckoned sinners, they were reckoned ungodly, and enemies to God. These enemies were all for whom Christ died, who lived in the ages before he lived, at that time, and who would live in subsequent ages. They were all reckoned without strength, sinners and enemies. God is the offended party and these are the offenders, who, as such, needed to be reconciled to God or restored to his favor, and the price of such reconciliation is the death of Christ, which is paid to God and not to them. Thus God’s wrath was turned from them and his just anger toward them removed.

There is an illustration of this in Christ ordering the offending ones to be reconciled with each other.

Matt. 5:23-24. “Therefore If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.”

The obvious meaning is that he should satisfy the offended one for any wrong he may have done him, so God’s satisfaction in the death of Christ for sinners for whom he died was the reconciliation of them to him. They could not bring about their own reconciliation by furnishing an expiation or propitiation, so God provided it for them. So Christ is said to reconcile both Jews and Gentiles for whom he died, by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. Eph. 2:16.

As direct and positive proof that this is the reconciliation referred to, and that it was accomplished at the time he died, I call attention to Dan. 9:24:

‘Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, anti to make an end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.”

To make reconciliation for iniquity, when was that to be? In seventy weeks after this prophecy or 490 years? This was when Christ died. So reconciliation was made when Christ died, according to this prophecy.

Of this reconciliation Paul speaks in Heb. 2 :17:

“Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”

For the people for whom he died of course.

When Christ cried, “It is finished,” sin was condemned in the flesh, and the handwriting that was against those for whom he died was canceled and torn, being nailed to the cross. This is unanswerable proof that the reconciliation effected by the death of Christ for those for whom he died was made when he died for them. Christ’s death fur sinners for whom he died was the propitiation or satisfaction for them which reconciled them to God when he died for them, they being then reckoned as enemies.

All who were reconciled to God by the death of his Son will be eternally saved by his life. Therefore, all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved.


My eighth argument is that the blood of Christ is covenant blood, the blood of the everlasting covenant. Heb. 13:20.

It was shed for those only who were embraced in the covenant of grace, who will be eternally saved in Heaven, according to that covenant. The term covenant is equivalent to the Hebrew word bereeth of the Old Testament, and the Greek word diatheka of the New.

There are two kinds of covenant which relate to man kind, the covenant of works or conditional covenant, and the covenant of grace or unconditional covenant. This argument relates to the covenant of grace. If my friend contends for the conditional covenant he may contend for that, but this argument relates to the covenant of grace, which is unconditional.

In the original scheme of the covenant of grace the Almighty Father, representing the entire Godhead in divine sovereignty, made choice of his Son to be the mediator for his people whom he chose in him as children of the covenant.

Isa. 42:1-7. “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him; he shall bring forth Judgment to the Gentiles. I, the Lord, have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles: To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit In darkness out of the prison house.”

Christ recognizes this covenant in coming into the world.

Heb. 10:5-7. “Wherefore, when he cometh into the world he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, body hast thou prepared me; in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo I come (in the volume of the book It is written of me) to do thy will, O God.”

In this covenant a people was given to Christ, whom he engaged to lay down his life for and finally bring to glory.

John 6:38-39. “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise It up again at the last day.”


John 10:11. “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”

John 10:29. “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.”

John 17:1-2. “These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.”

Heb. 2:10-13. “For it became him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many Sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifleth and they who are sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren. Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.”

This covenant is eternal in its origin and nature.

Isa. 23:5. “He has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things sure.”

This covenant is absolute and cannot fail.

(Time expired.)





Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:


It gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to come before you this morning and to look into your faces as I begin my part of this discussion: I was somewhat afraid a few weeks ago that I would not be able to be here. But through the kind Providence of the good Father, I am before you, for which I thank him.

I appreciate the kind remarks which were made by my Brother Moderators in introducing the service. That was a fine discussion we had a year ago. I never was in one I enjoyed better. Brother Daily and I met friends and we parted better friends. And we meet here this morning as friends and I have no doubt that this discussion will be conducted in a friendly manner all the way through and that when we close we will be better friends still than we have been heretofore.

I also appreciate and reciprocate the kind words that were spoken by Brother Daily in his opening remarks. I want to return them to you, Brother Daily, with good interest and at the same time thank you for them.

Now, I have no doubt that Brother Daily is perfectly sincere in his proposition and in his argument. I don’t question that for one moment. He thinks he is right and it was a noble statement he made when he said because he thought he was right he didn’t fear, and that other statement was still nobler, that if he was wrong and could be corrected he would receive great benefit. I want to apply the same remarks to myself as to this discussion.

Of course while we are debating this proposition it is my business to follow and answer my brother. It is my business to tear down, if I can.

I want to say this in the beginning: That Brother Daily’s definitions of the terms of the proposition I can, in general accept as to the meaning of the words; and as to the arguments he has made, a great many of them, so far as the statement of them is concerned, with them I agree. I disagree with him in the conclusions which he makes from the statements and passages that he adduces and from the proofs which he quotes.

I believe that Christ died for his people. I believe that Christ died for every one of his elect. I believe that every one of these will be saved, but I contend in this discussion that he died for others besides these, who will not be eternally saved and if I succeed in finding just one, I don’t need to follow Brother Daily in all his arguments and statements. If I find one person in all the history of the race that Christ died for who will not be eternally saved, my opponent’s proposition falls. Isn’t that right Brother Daily? He says it is right. You see I have an easy task, if I can find such a person. Watch mc and see if I find one such person, as we proceed with the discussion.

As to Brother Daily’s questions, it is a little early for him to begin giving mc questions, until we get fairly into the discussion. I will, however, get to them in due time. By the way, I shall have a few for him. I may give him some of them in this speech possibly. Possibly not.

His first argument was stated this way: “The death of Christ was necessary for the salvation of sinners and was designed to accomplish that end.”

But before I enter upon the work of answering this. I have something else I want to present to you—a point or two I want to make clear. By the way, this debate is to be published, and we mustn’t try to go too fast.

I want to call your attention to this fact: My opponent’s proof texts in support of his proposition must contain the terms to be proven or their equivalents. The passages he quotes must contain the terms to be proven or their equivalents, he has not quoted a single passage that conforms to that rule. The reason is, there is no such passage. If it was in the Book, Brother Daily would find it. But it is not in the Book.

If show you that Christ died for the whole human race and then show that some members of the human race will be eternally lost, my opponent’s proposition fails. He agreed awhile ago that it is enough if I show this as to one. If I show you there has ever been a moment when any one for whom Christ died, was lost, I show that, logically, there may be such a moment to all eternity. God can as well afford in justice and mercy to have one for whom Christ died punished for his sins in eternity as he can in time. So my friend’s proposition is lost.

I shall examine my opponent’s proof texts as best I can and show that, fairly interpreted, they do not prove his proposition. I shall bring forward proof texts and facts which, fairly interpreted, prove the truth of my denial of that proposition. I hope you will all read the proposition until you get it burned into your memories. It is what John R. Daily affirms: “All for whom Christ died will be eternally saved.” Elder Daily affirms that all those for whom Christ died are certain of eternal salvation, and that all those for wham Christ did not die, arc certain to suffer end less punishment.

And the fact that Christ did not die for them is not their fault. If there is a man here this morning for whom Christ did not die, it is not that man’s fault; it is his awful misfortune.

It is true that God takes no pleasure in the death of any of them; Ezk. 18:32, “For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God; wherefore turn yourselves and live ye.”

God is kind to the wicked: Luke 6:35, “But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest; for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.”

God is not willing that any should perish. Second Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” That is the word of God, as sure as you live, Brother.

But not one, according to Brother Daily, not one for whom Christ did not die, can possibly escape an endless hell. Christ’s death has infinite value and could have furnished a covering for all as well as for one. It would not have caused him a pang of suffering more to die for all than for one, because it took measureless suffering to provide that which would make atonement even for one. Oh, why should measureless love leave one out? The love that makes the sun to rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the just and unjust! Without the death of Christ for him, no sinner can be saved: by the one sin of Adam, unless Christ died for him, he is lost forever. Not for his own sin, but for Adam’s sin. No hope! No way of escape for any child of Adam race for whom Christ did not die.

The infant in its mother’s arms may be doomed to endless punishment, if my friend’s proposition be true. It was just as true of men when they were infants that Christ had not died for them as it will be when they arc in hell! They were born into the world with not the remotest chance for heaven! Not their fault; but their misfortune! Born sure of hell, without any possible remedy because Christ didn’t die for them, according to my friend’s proposition.

If Christ did not die for them, they cannot be saved. Yet God wants them to repent. God commands them to repent; but if my friend’s doctrine is true, they cannot repent; and if they could, according to his doctrine, they could not be saved, because there is no salvation for them without the death of Christ for them. God commands them to believe on his Son, but they cannot, according to my brother’s doctrine; and if they could, they cannot be saved. For you to believe on Christ is to believe that Christ died for you, and if a man should believe that Christ died for him when he did hot die for him, he would believe a lie.

No repentance for them, that is, for those for whom Christ did not die. No faith for them. No forgiveness for them. Not the remotest chance of salvation for them. Burn sure of hell with no possibility of missing it! Some of your children may be born with no ghost of a chance for heaven, if Christ didn’t die for them. Half or more of the prattling boys and girls in Franklin County to may have no ray of hope for happiness hereafter; for my friend agrees there are many for whom Christ did not die. Pull down the curtain! Too bad to look at. If it is true we ought to take it of course. It is an awful thing, but let the truth prevail if the heavens fall.” But I don’t believe it is the truth.

I have a few things I want to show you before I proceed to the direct answer of Brother Daily’s arguments. Now we are talking about Christ’s death. Christ’s death for men. I. desire to make a few statements, a number of which Brother Daily has already made; for instance, Matt. 20:28. Certainly that is right. I desire to mention some of the purposes of Jesus’ death.

Jesus Christ died a ransom for many. Matt. 20:28, “Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” That doesn’t say how many.

He died for the sins of his people. “He died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” I Cor. 15 :3 We agree on that all right. I believe that as much as Brother Daily does. He died to redeem his people from the curse of the law. Gal. 3:13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written: Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” I agree to that. I believe that. But it doesn’t prove the proposition. The term to be proven is not in it.

Christ died for his church, as Brother Daily says. Eph. 5:25, “Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” That doesn’t prove the proposition. Paul doesn’t say here whether he died for any one besides the church or not.

He died for the individual believer. Now! Gal. 2 :20, “I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” That doesn’t mean that he didn’t give himself for any one else! Of course not. Why say, when he says that he gave himself for the church, that he died for nobody else but the church? Anybody can see that point.

He died for the ungodly. Romans 5:6. “For when we were without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.” How many of them? My opponent says, only a part of them, and that only a part of them will be eternally saved. That is not in this passage.

He died for the unjust. 1st Peter 3:18, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us God,” etc. How many of the unjust? The passage doesn’t say.

He died to be a ransom for all. 1st Tim. 2:6, “He gave himself a ransom for all.” How many were “all?” Does it say all the elect? We will discuss that further when we come to the full passage. But this says he gave himself a ransom for all.

My opponent teaches that Christ didn’t die for all men, but only for the elect; but if he gave himself a ransom for all, which I prove, it must then follow that some for whom he died will not be eternally saved.

But further still. He died to take away the sin of the world. Jno. 1:2 “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” What sin? Just of the church? No, sir! Just of individuals like Paul? No, sir! But the sin of the world. I challenge Brother Daily to find a passage in the book of John’s Gospel, or in 1st John where the word “world” ever means only the elect.

There is another passage which says he died for every man. Hebrews 2:9, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor”—What for?—“That he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” So, if there is a single man lost, where is my friends proposition? And he, himself, says some will be lost. Yet Paul says Christ tasted death for every man. There is no exception.

Now! He died to remove the guilt of the Adamic sin from the race! Rom. 5:12-19. “Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment cam upon all men to condemnation (That is scripture, and is in the 18th verse), even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Brother Daily has got to take the ground of the Universalist, that everybody will be eternally saved, or surrender his position, because he has said himself, that it is the most God-dishonoring doctrine under the sun to say that any one for whom Christ died would not be eternally saved. But I show you in the words of the Apostle that he tasted death for every man! Good-bye, Brother Daily. I would rather you would come this way; but if you are going to be a Universalist, good-bye.

Christ died for the Jewish nation. Jno. 11:49-52, “And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all (This is what the High Priest said) Nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this, spake he not of himself; but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in. one the children of God that were scattered abroad.” Now haven’t I proven, that Jesus died for the Jewish nation? And if I show that some of the Jewish nation will be eternally lost, what have you got? You have some whom Christ died for that will not be eternally saved; and so my friend’s proposition is lost. Good-bye!

I want now to make a statement or two which may seem somewhat like, a repetition: All true believers. for whom Christ died will be eternally saved. We are agreed on that.  He quoted John 3:16 and John 10:28,  both “I will give unto them eternal life.” That is Jesus died for them, and they live eternally—all of them. Of course there is no discrimination. But it is true, further, that all who die not having actually sinned, for whom he died, will, be eternally saved. There is nothing against them. And Christ did die for all of them. “As by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”

We read of one weak brother for whom Christ died that perished. 1st Cor. 8 :10—11, “For if any man see thee which hast knowledge, sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols? And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” In the Revised Version, American, it reads: “For through thy knowledge he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whom Christ died. It doesn’t mean a brother in Christ, because we have seen that those in Christ will never perish, but here is a brother in Adam for whom Christ died, who perishes. The Greek word apoleitai is the same as in John 3:16, where the word perish occurs.

Certain of the Jewish Nation for whom Jesus died will not be eternally saved. Judas, for instance. The language is this: “The Son of man indeed goeth as it is written of him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born,” Mar. 14:2. Did Christ die for him? The high priest by prophecy speaking not of himself, said that Christ should die for that nation.

Another member of the Jewish nation condemned: See Luke 16:22, 23, 26: “And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom; the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” Here is one for whom Christ died in hell; in torments, and, if there is no way to get out, lost forever. The Restorationists tell us there is a way to get out! But read this: “And besides all this,” this rich man in hell is told,—“between us and you there is a great gulf fixed; so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.” In torment! In hell! Character fixed forever! and yet Christ died for him. And yet Brother Daily says, in the face of all these Scriptures, that to say that any man will be finally lost for whom Christ died is the most God-dishonoring doctrine that could be proposed! The issue is between you and the Bible, Brother Daily. I would hate to make such a charge against those who uttered the language I have quoted.

Still others—Jews for whom Christ died. John 8:21, “Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins; whither I go ye cannot come.” Yet he died for them! What does my friend’s proposition say? That they would be eternally saved. But Jesus says to them: “Whither I go ye cannot come.” “Ye shall die in your sins.” Whom shall we take? Brother Daily, a nice Christian gentleman or Jesus? The High Priest by prophecy, in so many words tells us that Jesus died for that nation! and these were members of that nation. And they cannot go to Christ where he is.

In 2nd Peter 2:1, we are told of some Christ bought —false teachers that Christ bought, and it says concerning them: “Even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” Here are some that Jesus bought. Peter says so. And Peter says that these who deny the Lord that bought them “shall utterly perish (see the 12th verse) in their own corruption.” He says that the blackness of darkness is reserved to them forever. What are you going to do with that? Christ bought them. They utterly perish. They bring upon themselves swift destruction. And yet my friend’s proposition says that all that Jesus bought, all whom he died for, will be eternally saved. Will those men in Second Peter be eternally saved? Tell us that! Jude tells about those same men.

Those of whom Jesus speaks in John 5:28-29, will not he eternally saved, because he says: “All that are in their graves shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.” Jesus died for these. He tasted death, I tell you, for every man. Paul says he did, and I don’t think he dishonored God when he said it.

Those of whom Paul speaks in 2 Thess. 1:7-9, and for whom Jesus died and to whom the gospel was offered, will not be eternally saved: “And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall he punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” Now those people were under the Gospel and they are going to he destroyed. According to Brother Daily the Gospel couldn’t make demands on them because it is only for those for whom Christ died! But Paul says Jesus tasted death for every man. Yet these shall he everlastingly destroyed.

We find some in 2nd Thess. 2:9-12, for whom Christ died and who will not be eternally saved: “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” They received not the love of the truth that they might he saved! “And for this cause (listen to this) because they received not the love of the truth that they might not he saved” “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might he damned who believed not the truth but who had pleasure in unrighteous ness.” Christ died for them. He died for every man. My opponent’s proposition is squarely against the word of God and fails, fails, fails!

Here is a stone wall that Brother Daily with all his ability and ingenuity, cannot climb over. He talks nicely; he quotes Scripture; but his passages do not contain the terms to be proven. You will see it. The book will show it. I glad this to go in cold type.

But now Brother Daily says that the death of Christ was necessary for the salvation of sinners and was de signed to accomplish that end, and that its design must all he accomplished. The salvation of those for whom he died is sure! and he quotes Matt. 18:11 which says. “He came to seek and save that which is lost.” He also quotes 1st Thess. I want to look at Matt. 18:11. It is one of my It is one of my brother’s proof texts and deserves examination. It  is true of course but it doesn’t have in it what he thinks is there. “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” This passage proves conclusively that the mission of Jesus was for all men, because all men are lost. Aren’t they? Why, sure! In the first place, the race was lost because of Adam’s transgression. See Romans 5:12. Listen to this: “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men for all have sinned.” We all sinned in Adam. You and I. Then what? What has Jesus done, having come to save that which was lost? “Therefore as by the offense of one”—18th verse 5th chapter of Romans—“judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men”—the same all men—“unto justification of life.” All right. So he saved all men from the Adamic sin. That is as plain as the nose on your face, and I see some are pretty plain. All plain enough. Jesus came to save all thus lost and did save them; that is, from the guilt of Adam’s sin. Not one child of Adam will ever go to hell for, Adam’s sin. Jesus took that away. John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. In perfect harmony with this is the declaration of Paul in 1st Tim. 4:10, “I therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially those who believe.” What about the living God, Paul? “He is the Saviour of all men.” Of how many men? All men. What else have you to say? “Specially of those that believe.” You see Paul makes a distinction. And all men that believe are the elect. And unless all men he saved eternally there will be some for whom he died that will not be eternally caved. So my opponent’s proposition is gone. He is the Saviour of all men in that he has saved all men from the guilt of Adam’s transgression. He is the special Saviour of those that believe, because, when they believe, he pardons all their actual transgressions. Many for whom he died and whom he saved from Adam’s guilt, become actual transgressors and never believe and so are lost forever.

Rom. 3:25-26, “Whom God had set forth to be a propitiation”—and that word might well be rendered “mercy seat.” Through faith in his blood” (those who have faith in his blood are saved—but those who don’t believe in that blood are lost. Through him men are saved from the Adamic transgression and he is the mercy seat to whom any man can come who will. And he bids men to come? Yes sir; actual transgressors. Let me quote you the Scripture on that and see if you will take it: John 3:17, “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world” (the world was already condemned) “but that the world through him might be saved.” Not certainly should be, but might be. So Jesus says in John 5:40, “And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.” Seems plain enough.

Brother Daily quotes from Matt. 1:21. He says that Jesus won’t save any more nor any fewer. The passage doesn’t say it. I agree he will save his people, every one of them. Sure! But that doesn’t prove he died for no one else. Paul says he tasted death for every man, and Paul says he is the Saviour of all men. What necessity is there for a brother to set himself squarely in the face of God’s word? He says it wasn’t Christ’s mission to try to save them or to get any one else to save them. That doesn’t affect this truth.

He quotes from Is. 53:10, “He shall see his seed” and “be satisfied. Therefore all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved! That doesn’t follow. Why should my brother make that argument? I agree that the passage says that Christ in his death saw the final, eternal end. He saw John R. Daily. He saw me; and both of us after he saw us passed under the curse and were lost—but further on he saw us in him—saved. What about us when we were lost? What about this other man over here that hasn’t yet been brought to him? If one of the elect may be lost today and is dead in sin, after Christ has paid his debt and there is nothing against him, what justice can there be in God imposing such a penalty?

He finds where Jesus came down from Heaven to do the will of his Father. And that it is the will of his Father that his people should be saved. John 6:37-39, let us see if that is in it which Brother Daily thinks is in it “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.” Correct. “And him that cometh to me I will in no wise east out.” Correct. “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will but the will of him that sent me.” Correct. “And this is the Father’s will which bath sent me. That of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day. Jesus said it. It must be true. It would be God-dishonoring for me to deny it. This passage teaches that some are specially given Christ: but it does not say that these were all for whom Christ died: that he just for these and none others. This passage teaches that all those given shall come to Christ, but it does not say that it was only for those he died. He died for those who do not come. This is my point. These shall be raised tin at the last day, but it does not say that it was only for these that Jesus died. The book plainly says in so many words that he tasted death for every man. See Heb. 2:9. Isn’t that so? Why sure! It is not his will that any should perish. He would have saved Jerusalem but they would not. “Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together (notice he would then) even as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings and ye would not!” See Matt. 23:37. God would. They would not. That is what Jesus Christ said. Christ would. They would not. So we see Christ’s will is not always done with men; wasn’t done with Jerusalem. He loves you. He wants you to live holy every day, but you don’t do it. God’s will of purpose stands as eternal and more so than the mountains, but his will of pleasure, his desire, is not always met. He would save all, but we may refuse him. See Prov. 1:20-33, I believe, I will read a part of it to show you: “Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets; she crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates; in the city she uttereth her words, saying: how long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? And the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge Turn you at my reproof; behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.” That is gospel, isn’t it? Yes, sir; that is gospel. Let us see how they do: “Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand and no man regarded; but ye have set at naught all my counsel, and would none of my reproof ; I also will laugh at your calamity I. will mock when your fear commeth.” Man’s will! God’s desire!

Now, as to the love that caused Christ to die and caused the Father to give him, we are told in 1st John 4 9—10 about this, “herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins. Truth. But does this use the terms of my friend’s proposition as you see it on the chart? Not at all. Did God love no one but us? He loved the world. “God so loved the world.” Did he send his Son for anybody but us? See John 3:17, “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” Did God send his Son to be the propitiation for the sins of none but us? See 1st John 2:2, “He is the propitiation for our sins”—Mine and Brother Daily’s; all God’s peoples’ sins. “He is the propitiation for our sins.” Brother Daily has it that this is all there is of it—just God’s People! John puts it this way: “He is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only. What else, John are you going to say? Hear! Brother Daily says, “Dishonor God!” Let’s see. John goes on: “He is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” Now can Daily ever climb that mountain? Can he tunnel through it? Can he get around it? Never! It is the word of God and it stands against his proposition everlastingly.

My friend tells us the word “world’ in John 3:16 just means those that Christ died for and that he died only for the elect; for those that will be saved, and that the rest are left out. Let us see if we can read that into it! “For God so loved the world, how much ?—“that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him—should”—be no longer of the world—“should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “For God sent not his Son in the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved.” “He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned al ready, because he hath not believed.”

My brother called attention to Rom. 9:10-13; also to Eph. 5:2 and 5:25-27. I will pass Romans for the present. Let us see about Eph. 5:2 and 5:25 a little. I want to notice it still further later. Eph. 5:2, Brother Daily also quoted the first verse. “And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour.” Certainly Christ gave him self for us as an offering. Nobody disputes that. I don’t dispute that he also gave himself for others. He died for others. I us Father sent him, as John says in so many words, to be the Saviour of the world. He tasted death for every man, as Paul says. But not all for whom he died will be eternally saved.

Now to the passage about the church: “Husbands love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might present it to himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle,” etc. This is all about the church. This does not prove that Christ died for the church and no one else. He loved the church, but he also loved the world. Jno. 3:16, He gave himself for the church. He was also sent into the world that the world might be saved and he gave his flesh for the life of the world. See Jno. 6:51, “My flesh, which 1 will give for the life of the world.” He bought some men who are to suffer the blackness of darkness forever. 2nd Peter 2:1, 12-17. Here are those that Jesus bought; that bring on themselves swift destruction; that are to suffer the blackness of darkness forever. Christ loved the church and gave himself for it that he might present it to him self a glorious church. So God loved the world and Christ gave himself for the world that the world through him might be saved; that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

My friend proves, as he thinks, from the second chapter of Ephesians that Christ died for none except those whom God quickens through Christ. We are the beneficiaries of life through Christ’s death. Eph. 2:12: “You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world. Then on down about the 5th verse it is said: “For when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (By grace ye are saved),” and he says it follows that he will quicken only those for whom Jesus died and if not, why not? Suppose I can’t tell you? Just sup pose I can’t tell you? I can; but suppose I couldn’t? What figure does that cut in the face of this passage?

When does he give us life? Let me quote the 8th verse of the same chapter, Eph. 2:8: “For by grace are ye saved.” Before faith? No! Without faith? No! “Through faith.” Quickened through faith. Life through faith. We will discuss that at some length on the next proposition, and we will see before this debate closes that it doesn’t follow that, because a sinner is dead, he may not take steps toward Christ. Just make use of that, if you want to, in advance.

Now Brother Daily says God’s love caused God to send Christ to die for his people, and that he loved them just alike, and that Christ, therefore, came and died. Where do you find that out? For the instruction of the audience, please tell us where you found out that God loved all his people just alike— the elect people. Christ had a favorite among the twelve, even.

Then he quotes from Romans 8, which will be examined a little farther on.

But he says that Christ is a mediatorial priest and speaks of his entrance into the most holy place, where he purged our sins. See Heb. 1:1-3. I want to turn to something I have on that passage and give it to you. “God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” That is the way it reads. The American revision says: “When he had made purification of sins, sat down.” The Emphatic Diaglott says: “Having made a purification for sins, sat down.”

This purging or purification was not done on the cross, Brother Daily. It wasn’t done on the cross. In the tabernacle service the bullock was killed out side the tabernacle. Then the high Priest took the blood and went into the holiest of all—the Sanctum Sanctorium—and sprinkled the blood as directed, and made all atonement. Here in the must holy place. Not where the bullock was killed. Made an atonement, first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people. So, Jesus as the goat of sin offering was slain on the cross. Afterwards Jesus as the High Priest, with our sins on him, so that they were as his—he was counted as the greatest sinner on earth— he took his blood and entered into heaven itself—the mo holy’ place—and there first for himself, by the sprinkling of blood, “purged our sins,” as in the common version, or as in the Diaglott, made “purification for sins”; and God accepted him as having made good, and placed him at his own right hand. But this does not mean that all for whom he died shall be eternally saved.

(Time expired.)

Last Updated ( Wednesday, 18 October 2006 )
Next >


The Primitive or Old School Baptists cling to the doctrines and practices held by Baptist Churches throughout America at the close of the Revolutionary War. This site is dedicated to providing access to our rich heritage, with both historic and contemporary writings.