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


Gentlemen Moderators, Worthy Opponent, Respected Audience:

My Brother said he believed that Jesus died for his people, for the church, and that he also died for others. There were those then regarded by him when he died as his church, and for whom he died, and there were others, all the others that were not his church, not so regarded when he died. There was a distinction between his church and the “others.” Now, suppose any of these “others” should be saved, will they constitute part of his church?

He says a passage to prove a proposition must contain the exact terms of the proposition or the equivalent. Rom. 5:8-10 certainly does contain the equivalent. “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we are 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.” That proves evidently, as an equivalent of the terms of my proposition, that all for whom Christ die will be eternally saved, because when he died he made the reconciliation as I have proved.
He quoted from Ezekiel, where God says by the prophet, “I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth; saith the Lord God; wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.” God is there addressing National Israel and speaking of the disobedient ones among National Israel. As his promises to that nation were conditional promises, if they obeyed God, under that National law, God preserved them; if they did not, God afflicted them. He had no pleasure in such affliction in case of disobedience under national law.

He referred to 2nd Peter 3:9, “God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” It is God’s work to save sinners. This, my worthy opponent will not deny. Since it is God’s work to save sinners, and since he doeth according to his will as the Bible declares, he will save all he wills to save. Therefore if this passage means all mankind, all will be saved. To come to repentance is to come to Christ. Christ says no one can come to him except the Father draws him. Then all that the Father wills to come to Christ will be drawn. If this passage means all mankind, all will repent and be saved. It is God’s goodness that leads to repentance. Rom. 2:4. Since it is God’s goodness that leads to repentance, if this passage means all mankind, all will come to repentance. If there are more references made to that, we have more.
He said: “Why should measureless love leave one out?” According to his theory measureless love leaves millions out. Christ loving them enough to die for them, and God loving them enough to send Christ to die for them, yet millions are left out without a shadow of a chance for salvation, according to his theory. I dare him to deny it. Millions left out according to his system without the shadow of a chance for salvation.

He speaks of the infant. He tries to draw the string of sympathy again. This I anticipated. The infant, if saved, which it will be if it dies in infancy, was atoned for by Christ on the cross and its nature will be changed by regeneration and it will go to heaven. We will see later whether his system will take it there or not.

But he spoke of some probably being commanded to believe and yet could not, or having opportunity to believe and yet could not, and if they did they could not he saved because Christ did not die for them. Christ died for everyone who believes in Christ. Christ died for every one who ever repents of sin. Christ died for every mourner and every one who ever did mourn, and every one of them will go to heaven.

Speaking of the “ransom for all,” he did not answer my argument relative to that, neither did he answer a single argument I made in my speech this forenoon. But he gave a passage which he thought was a kind of off-set to the passage of proof. This passage was 1st Tim. 2:6, where he said he gave himself a ransom for all. Ransom is here translated from antilutron. The preposition anti is here joined to the verb. It is a strong word translated ransom in this text. Anti means over against, corresponding to, in place of, in retribution or return for. Lutron is from the verb luo which means to loosen, unbind, set at liberty, So the word anti-lutron means the payment of such a price as retribution or return for as results in loosing or setting at liberty all for whom the ransom is paid. This fact is strengthened still by the phrase huper panton “for all.” Huper (for) means in the attitude of protection, so that the idea of protection over all for whom the ransom was paid is definitely ex pressed. This makes it infallibly certain that all for whom this ransom was paid, for whom this blessed Mediator gave himself as a ransom, will be eternally saved. So when he says he gave himself a ransom for all he did not mean the whole human race. If he did, the whole race is going to heaven.

Speaking about taking away the sin of the world, I ask him if Christ took away the sins of the whole race, what will send any of them to hell?

Speaking of Christ tasting death for every man, in Heb. 2:9, he claims “every man” means the entire human race. Let’s see. The phrase “for every man,” is translated from the Greek phrase, huper pantos. It is not “for every man,” but “for every.” The word “man” is not in the original. This might be translated “for every one,” if taken distributively, which means every one of the many brethren mentioned in the context, for whose salvation Jesus was made a perfect captain. Through suffering he was made the perfect captain of the salvation of all finally brought to glory by him, and not of all the human race. If he tasted death for every one of the human race, and thus became the captain of their salvation through suffering for them they will all be saved and be brought to glory. So he tasted death for those only for whom he was made a perfect captain. These were given to him by the Father, and he will ultimately bring them all to glory, and these are the “every man” that Jesus Christ tasted death for—every man understood in the context, and not the entire human race.

He refers to the 5th chapter of Romans to prove that Christ removed the Adamic sin, arguing that all men were lost by Adam’s sin and all justified by Christ. If that means the entire human race will not the entire human race be saved in heaven? How will he escape Universalism?

The Apostle would have said it was for the infant in the infant state if he had meant them, but he speaks of men and not of infants. I deny that all that were condemned in Adam were justified by Christ. To admit that would be to admit Universalism, from which there would be no escape. Then he said, “Goodbye.” I’ve come back. How d’y’, Brother Throgmorton.

He called attention to John 11:49-52, to try to prove that Christ died for the Jewish nation, where it is said. “One of them—one of the Pharisees—named Caiaphas, being the High Priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And thus 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.” 
Then there were children of God that did not belong to the Jewish nation—but the Gospel had not been preached to others at all. Then God had a people among the Gentiles. I wish you would stick a pin there. Jesus’ atonement had been made, not only for Jews, but for the Gentiles. His people among the Jews and among the Gentiles.

He speaks about the weak brother perishing: I Cor. 8:11, Now the Apostle is there writing to brethren in the church, and speaks of a weak brother in the church perishing. The argument of my friend is, that one who belongs to the church, is a brother in the church, might eternally perish. Do you believe in Apostacy? If not, why did you call attention to that? Did that mean a brother in Adam? How do you know it did? The Apostle is not writing to the Adamic family, but to the Church of God He means a brother in Christ. There might be many ways in which a person can perish and then not go to hell. There are different ways in which a person may perish. In II Peter 2:1, he says they deny the Lord that bought them. It does not say Christ bought them. Instead of kurios, the Greek word which is always used when Christ is meant, being used, it is despotes, referring to God as judge and ruler. He had bought them providentially by his mercy and goodness and they denied him. We will have more of that later if it is necessary.

In reference to my argument on the design, that God’s purpose in design would be accomplished, he said that his purpose would be accomplished, but his pleasure would not.

II. Tim. 1:9: “Who hath saved us, and called us, with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” If God’s purpose will always be accomplished, then all that God purposes to call will be called.

In reference to I Tim. 4:10, Christ is not referred to there. God the Father is referred to, and in saying he is the Saviour of all men and especially those that believe, he leaches that he is the preserver of all men by his protection over them, particularly and especially them that believe. The word Saviour here in the Emphatic Diaglott is translated preserver. In Hind’s Interlinear Greek Testament it is also translated preserver, so that time literal rendering would be preserver of all men, and especially those that believe. Now if he is the Savior of all men, he will save all, because it takes that to be a Saviour.

He quotes Rom. 3:25: “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God,” and makes faith a condition of propitiation. Christ’s death was not propitiation, then, for any except those that had faith in his blood. Now could I John 2:2 mean all the human race, where he said he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world, seeing that the whole world doesn’t have faith? If it takes faith to make Christ the propitiation, then I John 2:2 doesn’t refer to the whole world because the whole world doesn’t have faith. That is Bible, Brother Throgmorton.

He then came to the answer of my third question and said Christ died to make the. salvation of all possible through faith.

I have a drawing on the map which I hope you will all see. This circle represents the human race, or the world—all mankind. This triangle, or this part of the circle, represents the part where the gospel is preached. This part of the circle represents those who never hear the gospel preached. This dark part represents the portion of the world that hears the gospel preached that are saved and become the children of God. Here is God, and Christ, and the Spirit. Here are preachers. God himself reaches this part of the human family through preachers. He cannot reach this part of the human family because preachers do not get there. Here is the devil down here. He encompasses the world, the whole world. He goes where God is, where God is not, and gets a large majority that live where God is in the world, according to his theory. Yet he says God has made the salvation of all possible through faith. I ask if it is possible for those to believe? Is it possible for them to have faith? If so, how? If not, I ask him again, Has God made the salvation of all the human race possible through faith? Come to the question. More, later

His laugh is so dry it cracks.

(Mr. Throgmorton, I didn’t hear it.)

He said Christ saw us when he died on the cross, as his people—but further on he saw us all saved. Didn’t he see us all when he died who will finally be saved? Question for you there.
“Oh! Jerusalem! Jerusalem! thou that stonest the prophets, how often would I have gathered your children together--- and you would not.” This has reference to the people under the old Mosiac Law. The word was given to Israel. They would not obey his command. Jerusalem represented the Jewish nation under the conditional plan. He would have gathered doesn’t mean he tried to gather, had his Spirit to go to their hearts, and could not because they would not. It does not mean that.
He says his will of purpose stands, but that his will of desire is not always met. “We know that all things work together” for good to them that love God, to them that are called, according “to his purpose.” Every one he purposes to call will be called. His purpose stands like the mountain, sir, and you will never get over that mountain.

I had not yet finished the argument that I was on when I closed my speech. I referred to Psalms 89 to prove that the covenant is absolute and cannot fail. Beginning with the 27th verse, concluding with the 34th:

“Also I will make him my first born, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him ever more, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven. If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgment; if they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fall. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.”

Then the covenant is absolute and cannot fail.

Isa. 54:9-10. “For this is a the waters of Noah unto me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.”

Then the covenant cannot fail. Christ is the one Mediator of this covenant.

Heb. 8:6. “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”

Christ is the surety, for all for whom he died, according to this covenant. Heb. 7:22.

The offerings made by the Levitical Priests were covenant offerings, and when accepted of God never failed to accomplish the end designed. So the blood of Christ which was shed for many for the remission of their sins, was covenant blood, and, being accepted of God, it accomplished the end designed, the eternal salvation of all for whom he died. In the covenant relation he stood as the great shepherd of the sheep which were given to him by the Father and for whom he laid down his life. They shall never be plucked out of his hands, or the hands of his Father. He gives to them eternal life and they shall never perish. In the covenant relation he stood as the husband of his bride, who were the people given to him in the covenant.

Isa. 54:5. “For thy maker is thine husband; the Lord of Hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; the God of the whole earth shall he be called.”

Solomon saw this bride and asked, “Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness leaning upon her beloved?” Songs 8:5.

The angel said to John on Patmos, “Come hither and I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.” Paul saw this relationship and declared that Christ gave himself for her.

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

Eph. 5:31, 32. “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”

I now wish to present a summary of this argument to which I invite the special attention of my opponent.

All for whom Christ died were embraced in the covenant of Grace, because his blood was covenant blood. They were given to him by his Father in that covenant as his sheep and as his bride, to whom he thus became the Shepherd and the Husband. It was the Father’s will that he should lose nothing of that gift, but that he should raise it up at the last day. He laid down his very life, spilt his covenant blood, for these sheep, for this bride, gives to them eternal life and declares they shall never perish. None shall be able to pluck them out of his hands or the hands of his Father. He will finally bring them to glory and pre sent them before his Father, saying: “I and the children which God hath given me.” All this makes it absolutely certain that all for whom Christ died in that covenant sense will be eternally saved.

My next argument is that, as the Father made Christ to be sin for those for whom he died, in order that they might be made the righteousness of God in him, they will be eternally saved because the design of such a sacrifice cannot possibly fail.

II Cor. 5:21. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

“For us” is there huper hemon, signifying standing for, or in the place of, in the sense of protection, so that what would be due to the person protected is satisfied in the, protector. This is very plain and positive language. Christ received this treatment from his Father who made to be sin; or, as the original might be rendered him as though he were sin itself, in behalf of all those for whom he died. He was made to be sin for them. The Greek word huper, rendered “for” in this text, means over or above, and signifies protection over that for which he died, sheltering those for whom he died from every impending danger and thus warding it off.
(Time expired.)


Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen

I come before you to continue the argument on the negative side of this question and to pay some attention to the speech to which you have just listened. However, before I come to that speech I desire to finish the argument which I was making in the forenoon. You remember I marked the place. We were speaking concerning Heb. 1:1-3, where Christ is said to be the brightness of his Father’s glory and to be upholding all things by the word of his power and where it is said that when he had by himself purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.
I had reached this point: This does not mean that all for whom he died will be eternally saved. I had given that statement. Now I proceed from that. It means that he thus redeemed himself from that under which he had voluntarily placed himself. As Brother Daily showed in his last argument he satisfied for himself, and was therefore placed above the angels and every name that is named.

At the same time he ransomed the race from the one sin of the first man. This my opponent desires to escape. Jesus took away the sin of the world. That doesn’t mean the sins of actual transgression, but the sin that was on the race because of the one sin of the one man in the beginning. He took this away, so that no man will ever be lost on account of Adam’s sin; so that as to Adam’s transgression every child of the race is clear until he sins himself. Does my opponent deny that?
I have one question I want to give Brother Daily right here. He can answer it at his leisure. (Hands paper.)
Now I want to quote Rom. 5:18 again. “Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation.” Whose was the one offense? Adam’s. Who were the “all men” upon whom the condemnation came by Adam’s disobedience? What does Paul say? “As by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation.” Not by their own transgression, but because of Adam’s transgression.

“Even so by the righteousness of one,” that is, the righteousness of Jesus Christ, wrought out and finished on the cross, “Even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon”—how many? “Upon all men,” the same “all men” mentioned in the first part of the verse. My opponent says if that means all men, all men will be eternally saved, and told me “good bye.” It does mean universal salvation from Adam’s transgression, but not from actual transgression. There will never be a man in hell at last on account of Adam’s transgression unless it is Adam himself. “In Adam’s fall we sinned all,” but Christ died for us and took that sin away. So when infants die they are saved, and God does for them whatever is necessary to make them enjoy heaven and the Father’s glory. At the same time Jesus became a propitiation.—that is, a “mercy seat”—as it may be rendered in Rom. 3:25-26—for actual transgressors, in the sense that God was so satisfied with what Jesus had done that he could be just and justify any sinner who would believe on him. That is what the Book says. Thus “he is the Saviour of all men and especially of those that believe.” That translation doesn’t suit Brother Daily? So he wants to take Benjamin Wilson’s version, that he is the “preserver” of all men. Who is the laugh on, Brother Daily? Jesus is divine and he is “God over all and blessed forever;” and if you make Jesus the preserver of all men, it is because he died for them, and for no other reason.

But now I pass to another thought. He said Jesus shed his blood for the remission of sins, and asks shall it fail? No, sir. No, sir. Sins are remitted—Jesus doesn’t fail. “He shall not fail nor be discouraged!” I have been looking for him to quote that.

Brother Daily refers to Eph. 1:7 and to Col. 1:14, “In whom we have redemption.” This redemption is not something that we obtained on the cross when Christ died. Redemption is forgiveness! When did you get forgiveness, Brother Daily? Back there? or in the hour in which you fist believed? Tell us! Col. 1:14, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. “When were you for given? When Christ suffered on the cross? or when he met you in faith? I was forgiven when I met him in faith. Before that I was under the curse; I walked even as others; but when I came to him and believed on him, he met me and forgave my sins. That is what the redemption is.

Then we have this in John 3:16-17: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might he saved.” As I said this morning, this was not that the world should certainly be saved; not so; but that the world through him might be saved.

Notwithstanding Brother Daily’s beautiful picture, this language offsets it. Here is God—Christ, the Spirit, and the preachers and this down here (refer ring to diagram). Isn’t it possible for all these (the lost) to reach this (salvation)? You go and read the Old London Confession on Contingencies and learn that even Predestination doesn’t get away from second causes! and here in John 3:17 it stands in letters of light that “God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be”—what does might be mean? Any schoolboy knows—“the world through him might be saved.” That wasn’t all of his mission. But it was his mission.

Certainly all who are saved from actual transgression have redemption or forgiveness in him; but no man is forgiven until he believes; while full forgiveness is in Christ for all men if they believe. How could I make that any plainer?
Reference has been made to Titus 2:11-14. I have something to say on that passage. For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men; teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 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.” Not a thing in this passage to show that Jesus died for those only who will be eternally saved. The first statement is that the grace which brings salvation has appeared to all men. How? in what Jesus has done for them. See Rom. 5:18; john 1:29. See also john 1:9,  “That was the true Light”—Christ that died—“that was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” Will you make that light God the Father? Jesus Christ was the true light which lighteth every man. Will you say these were only the elect? They were all—every man that cometh into the world. Therefore my opponent’s proposition cannot be true.

Also we find that the Holy Spirit was sent for the benefit of the world. John 16:7-9, “For if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment; of sin, because they believe not on me.”

Titus 2:14, teaches that Jesus Christ gave himself for believers, but not for believers only. He gave himself, a ransom for all. See 1st Tim. 2:6. See also Jno. 6:51, “His life he gave for the life of the world.” The purpose of his ransom in Titus 2:14 was that he might redeem sinners from all iniquity, purify them and make them a peculiar people, zealous of good works. But we know this does not express all the purpose of it. See Jno. 3:16-17 again.

My brother also refers to Heb. 11, 14: “But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 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, for if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Now I want to examine this passage candidly and show that it doesn’t sustain my friend’s proposition. Just as the goat of sin offering was killed outside the tabernacle, Jesus was put to death on the cross, “Outside the camp.” And just as the High Priest in the tabernacle service took the blood of the goat which was slain, into the most holy place and there made an atonement, so Jesus as the high priest took his own blood into Heaven itself, after his resurrection, and there made and is making the atonement. No atonement on the cross. It is made in the most holy place by the blood shed on the cross, It must be made in the most holy place, Heaven itself.

There Jesus made “purification of sins” as to himself, and of the Adamic sin as to the race, and was “set forth to be a propitiation through faith” for every actual sinner who believes in him. See 1st John 2:2, and Rom. 3:25-26.
The eternal, redemption means this: He has redemption in hand (which means forgiveness) for every actual sinner, but the actual sinner doesn’t possess it. It is made over to the actual sinner when he believes, but never otherwise. Jesus has redemption for every one from the guilt of Adam and has made it over eternally to the race. He has redemption for the race from the grave, and will make it over to every one in the resurrection. But this does not mean that all actual transgressors will be eternally saved. We know that some are not saved now; so some may not be to morrow; some may not be next year; some may not be to all eternity. This is the logic of it. And as to the Bible we know he gave himself a ransom for all, and we know that some whom he thus bought will eternally perish. See 2nd Peter 2:1-12 and so on.
My friend quoted the Greek word for Lord in 2nd Peter 2:1. It is “despotes.” He would have you think it does not mean Christ. I want first to define the word; then to give its usage. It means “a Lord, or Master.” See lexicon. It occurs in Luke 2:29, where it means God. So also in 1st Tim. 6:1. In Jude 4, it occurs and Jude says it means Christ! And Jude is considering the san situation that Peter is in 2nd Peter 2:1, where the word occurs in Rev. 6:10, it evidently means Christ. The very meaning he says it doesn’t have: So we see in 2nd Peter 2:1, “despotes” means Christ, and Peter says the Lord (despotes, Christ) bought these men who utterly perish in their own corruption. Brother Daily says the buying of them refers to God’s ownership of them, as the Creator!

The blood of Christ purges our conscience from dead works. When? Back there when the blood was shed? Tell us. Is that what you mean—that your conscience was purged from sin when Christ died on the cross? Mine was purged in my lifetime by the application of that blood. And Christ’s blood when shed on the cross per se, cleanses no one. That only the application of the blood can do. It is the blood applied that does this thing. Let me read you Acts 15:7-9. It will show you when the purification takes place: “God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;”—now listen !—“and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” Not without faith— nor yet when the blood was shed; but by faith when the blood was applied. That is when the purging takes place as to the actual transgressor.
See 1st Peter 1 :22, 23, “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto un feigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently.” You have pure hearts. See that you use them. The pure heart comes by obeying the truth, which means believing the gospel.
Then we come to Romans 5:9, 10, which seems to be a sort of favorite with my brother. “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” Do you mean that we were justified by his blood when the blood was shed? Be plain on that point. “Much more now— being justified”—Can his blood act now, 1800 years after his blood was shed? Yes; it justifies men now. The act of justification takes place now—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.” Do you mean that reconciliation took place on the cross? You wasn’t reconciled then. You was born after that, and grew up and became a sinner and became dead in sin. You wasn’t reconciled then, but there came a time when you was reconciled, and it was done by the death of Christ, not when the death took place, but when you believed in that death. That was when you was reconciled. Not before then. To speak of a man as you was and as I was before we believed, as being reconciled is ridiculous! Perfectly ridiculous! But there comes a time when a man is reconciled by Christ’s death. Then the promise is that he shall be saved by Christ’s life. That is what this passage means.

In Dan. 9:24, Brother Daily thinks he finds something. Let’s see. I want to show that the proofs he thinks are in the passage are not there. Now watch:

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon the holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, 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!” How much proof is here for Brother Dailey’s proposition? Let’s look at it. Is there a word in this passage to show that all for whom Christ died will he eternally saved? Not a syllable. “To finish the transgression.” This does not mean that after Christ’s death there was no more transgression even on the part of the elect. The marginal rendering is “to restrain the transgression!“ “To make an end of sins.” This does not mean that after Christ’s death there were no more sins. There is no indication that this means reconciliation in the sense of eternally saving all for whom he died. “To bring in everlasting righteousness” does not necessarily mean that all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved. The most this can mean is that at the time appointed and by the means of that death, was provided a way by which transgression should be finished and sins should end. That was what it was for. It was to bring that about. It was that by which everlasting righteousness should be brought in. But all these things come to the actual transgressor only when he believes. Regeneration and redemption come then. It he believes, his sins are forgiven. That is when the sinner’s debt is paid. Not that the payment is in the belief. The payment has been prepared for. There is a difference in the preparation of a ransom and the payment of the ransom. Christ is the ransom in hand for every sinner, and when the sinner comes and believes in him, that ransom is paid over to God, and God is satisfied with that man—reconciled to him. That is reconciliation. He is reconciled to God. Rom. 3;21, 22, “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God. which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe.” These are the ones; these who believe.

But now his last speech. I want to notice a few things in it. Remember what we say here is to be printed. So we are not paying so much attention to this and that except as occasion comes up, although we propose to examine every passage, as the discussion proceeds, that seems in any, way to sustain his position. He says I make a distinction between the church and others. He doesn’t. If others should be saved, will they be a part of the church? They are the church then, are they not? Did the church exist when Christ gave himself for it or not? No! The church was future and was to be made up as he said of those that repent and believe. You wasn’t in the church until you believed. Before that you was a stranger to the covenant of promise. Under the curse. But when you believed, you became a part of this thing you call a great universal church. If anyone else comes to believe, he, too, comes into it.
Speaking of 2nd Peter 3:9, Brother Daily says God’s work is to save sinners. But that is not all of his work. God’s work is to provide the ransom for sinners; to offer the gift of his Son to sinners. All this is God’s work. “He will, save all he wills to save.”

In the sense of determination, that is true, but Jesus determined to save everyone that believes and he determined to save every son and daughter of Adam’s race from the one sin of Adam’s transgression. That is already settled. Eternally fixed.
Matt. 23:37, refers, Brother Daily says, to Jerusalem as a nation! Where did he find that out? Jesus was talking. He said, “I would; you wouldn’t.” If God’s will is always done when he wills, in whatever sense, why not in this? Isn’t God just as powerful in one day as in another? That was a sort of make-shift, Brother Daily. You ought to find something better. In Brother Daily’s theology “all God wills” is equivalent to this: That a sinner’s will has nothing to do with his salvation. God wills and the sinner’s will has nothing to do with it! The will of Jerusalem had something to do with it. Yet I don’t suppose he would have a sinner saved against his will. That would be contrary to the Old London Confession. He says Christ died for all who believe. I say he died for every one.
All that Greek my brother quoted—that is all well enough—I don’t think he misstated the meaning of any particular word in Heb. 2:9. But suppose “every man” is “every one”! What figure does it cut? Of whom is Paul talking? Who are they? Go back to the 6th verse. What is meant? Isn’t it all men? He is talking about “man” and the “son of man.” He goes on and tells us that God put all things under the foot of man and of the son of man and then says: “We see not yet all things ‘put under’ him, but we see Jesus made a. little lower than the angels for the suffering of  death crowned .with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every one.” Every one of whom? The people he was talking about of course! Man and the son of man. Every man and every son of man makes it still stronger. Thank you, Brother Daily; you are doing some good as you go along.

I want Brother Daily to remember this: That a ransom must be provided for the thing you intend to pay it for, before you pay it! He makes no distinction. He makes the working out of the ransom the providing of the ransom—the same thing as the payment of the ransom. They are very different! Very different!
“Well” he says, “if Christ takes away the sin of the race, can any go to hell?” I said Christ to take away the sin of the world, the guilt of the world for the one sin that Adam committed. Will anybody go to hell on that account? If Brother Daily thinks he will. I want him to tell us. But he asks, “If Rom. 5:12-18 means the entire human race, how do we escape Universalism?” and he denies that all the guilt of Adam’s transgression as to all men was taken away by Christ. The guilt of Adam’s transgression is on the infant, he would say, and it is not taken away; consequently the infant dies. Oh, yes, it is taken away from the elect infant, he says. And God won’t let a non-elect infant die, according to Brother Daily. He would have mothers praying for their infants to be non-elect, so that they may live and grow to manhood and womanhood, because if they are elect God might take them in infancy. But he will not, if they are non-elect. That is Daily’s doctrine.
(Time expired.)


Last Updated ( Wednesday, 18 October 2006 )
< Previous   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.