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

ELD. DAILY’S THIRD SPEECH

BRETHREN MODERATORS, RESPECTED OPPONENT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:

My brother handed me a question. The question is this: “is the living infant now in its mother’s arms guilty of Adam’s sins?’ My answer is: The effect rests upon the infant in its mother’s arms, otherwise why should the infant die? Remove the cause and will not the effect cease? If not, why?

In reference to Paul saying, “When he had purged our sins sat down” in Heb. 1:3, he took the strange position that Christ redeemed himself from that under which he had placed himself. The first time in my life I ever heard any one say that Christ ever in any sense redeemed himself. If he had to redeem himself how could he redeem others? I wouldn’t make such a play as that if I had anything better.

In reference to the 5th chapter of Romans, “Therefore, 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.” Does that justification of life mean eternal life? Does it mean they all received eternal life when it speaks of the free gift coming to all? If justification of life doesn’t mean eternal life, what kind of life does it mean? If it does mean eternal life, how can any fail to be saved forever? Answer that, and we will have more on that subject.

Speaking of God being a Saviour of all men, he denied that it meant the preserver of all men. He spoke of my referring to Wilson’s Diaglott. I have Smith’s Greek Dictionary here,—on the original word soter which gives preserver as the meaning; hence it has reference to God as the preserver of all men and especially those that believe.

In the way of redemption through his blood, in quoting that, he says we do not have redemption until we have forgiveness because redemption is forgiveness. Now Christ obtained eternal redemption for us before he entered the Holy Place, did he not? If Christ obtained eternal redemption before he entered the Holy Place, then will we not get the redemption that Christ obtained for us? If not, why? Is Christ’s work a failure? Will Christ obtain eternal redemption for a sinner when he dies on the cross, and then that sinner fail to receive that redemption that Christ had obtained for him? I proved that ransom signified a loosing, that it was to redeem that which was ransomed, and he hasn’t answered the argument, and he will not do it.

In reference to this diagram on the blackboard, he said it is possible for these to reach this—that is, for God and Christ and the Spirit and the preachers to reach this part of the world where preachers have never preached—the people to whom preachers have never preached. He says it is possible for God and the preachers to reach those people. If preachers never preach to them, and they live in this world and die without hearing the gospel, he says it is possible for God and Christ and the Spirit to reach those who die without ever hearing the gospel. How is it possible? Tell us how? You show the reasonableness of that. This part of my diagram represents those to whom the gospel is never preached. God cannot reach them; Christ cannot reach them, though according to my friend He has died for them; the Spirit cannot reach them—though according to my friend’s position Christ has died for them—because the preachers do not reach them; but he says they can reach all of them. It is possible for them to reach all of them! How can it be possible to reach one who dies without hearing the gospel, is something I cannot understand and neither can he.

He speaks of the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. I ask him if that true light lights those to whom the preached word is never preached? Does that light light those who die without hearing the gospel? He says that true light lights every man that conies into the world. Does that true light, through the preacher light those who never hear the gospel preached?

Speaking of the conscience being purged from sin, that is not the purging of the sins mentioned in Heb., 1st chapter. He purged our sins in a different sense when he died on the Roman cross. There was a sense in which He purged our sins when HI died on the cross, was there not? So there was a sense in which He purged sins. The Apostle says He purged our sins before He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on High.

Then he speaks about the souls of some being purified in obeying the truth. Their souls are not purified in that sense when Christ died on the cross. That is in another sense.

He denies that reconciliation took place when Christ died on the cross, as Daniel said in Daniel 9:29. Daniel said that reconciliation was accomplished at that time. He says the most this passage in Daniel can wean is that provision was made that all might be reconciled. Was provision made that those might be reconciled who never hear the gospel preached? Was provision made that they might be reconciled: if not, was provision made for all, according to your position, was it possible for all to be reconciled, if millions upon millions die without ever hearing the gospel preached?

He makes a distinction between the church and others. The church is future, he says. Then it reached down to the last one and embraced all that will ever be saved in heaven, that Christ died for. The church is future, if it is future and in time, and I believe in Christ and give the evidence that I am born of God and included, that doesn’t add me to the church; it only proves I am embraced in the number. In speaking of those who are not embraced, is it possible for them to be saved? Come and answer the question, if you can.
 
In speaking of not being willing that any should perish, God wills to save all He wills to save. Does God save these (represented on blackboard)? If He wills to save them, how does He will to save them? Christ died for them, but God cannot save them be cause the preacher doesn’t get there. Does God will to save them? If He does, he cannot carry it out. He fails because the preacher fails.

In referring to Heb. 2:9, my friend goes back to the 6th verse: “But one in a certain place testified, saying: What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that Thou visiteth him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; Thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of Thy hands. Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that He put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was 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 man.” This is a disjunctive statement, and the Apostle doesn’t have reference to what preceded, but to some thing else, as the conjunction “but” signifies... If he had meant an addition, he would have said “and we see Jesus.” He does not say “and”; he says “but.” Then he goes on and talks about what Jesus did in dying, tasting death for every man, and goes on and explains that it was for those for whom Christ was made a perfect Captain of their salvation.

He said a ransom must be provided before it is paid, and so God provided a ransom when Christ died on the cross. He paid it. And that song,

“Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe,

Sin had left a crimson stain,

He washed it white as snow,”

expresses it. When He died on the cross was when He paid it. That was when the ransom was paid; and all for whom the ransom was paid, because of the payment of the ransom, will be saved. He cannot fail, and He will not.

He said the “sin of the world’’ referred to, when it is said, “He taketh away the sin of the world,” means all men. I deny it, and demand him to prove it. I deny that John meant all the sin of the world; I mean to say the sin of Adam simply. I deny it, and demand him to prove it.

He says according to my position God will not let a non-elect infant die. I am glad he said that. I agree with him. God will not let a non-elect infant die, so every one that dies in infancy is saved in heaven. Do you say God will let a non-elect infant die? If you say He will not, and agree with me, why do you ask the question? If we are agreed, why mention it? I ask you, do you mean that God will let a non-elect infant die? See if you will answer.

“What does the death of Christ, apart from every thing else, accomplish in the salvation of sinners?” For instance, in the case of those who die without hearing the gospel, what does the death of Christ accomplish in their eternal salvation? You deny that all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved. You contend that some will be eternally damned. Now what does Christ’s death accomplish in the case of those who never hear the gospel preached?

Let us illustrate the gentleman’s theory. Let this represent those that are lost, and this those who are saved (using two books). That Christ died for these he admits, but also argues that He died for these just the same. No difference in the death. What does the death of Christ do for these? They go to endless ruin. They suffer in an endless hell, though Christ died for them. What makes the difference between the two? The death of Christ? No, sir. Anything Christ did? No, sir. He did just as much for these as these. Nothing that Christ did makes the difference. My friend’s position is that what these did, and not what Christ did, is what made the difference between the classes. So that those in heaven are there for what they did, and not by reason of what Christ did for them!

I was dwelling on the argument, when I closed before, 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 service cannot possibly fail of being accomplished. This truth is declared in most positive language in 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.” When was that redemption accomplished? When He was made a curse for us. When was He made a curse for us? When He died on the Roman cross, That agrees with the other text, that He entered heaven, having obtained eternal redemption for us. So Christ has redeemed us, for it is written, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” The meaning is: He was made a curse over us, in the sense of protection. This represents Him as being a curse in an attitude of protection over them for whom He died. The Greek word huper means over, so that the curse due to them fell upon Him. They were shielded by Him. As surety of the covenant He stood to His engagement and made full reparation for the sins of those for whom He died. Because of His being made sin and a curse, the supporting and comforting presence of His Father was withdrawn from Him, so that He cried out, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” It was for no sin of His own, but because He became sin for those for whom He died, and because He died a curse for them.
 
Christ, in being made sin for those for whom He died, was their substitute, as the word huper positively declares. Every sinner for whom He died must be absolved or the substitution of Christ is a failure. Did Christ die for sinners as an absolute substitute? He has not said yes, or no, to that question. He has not even given an evasive answer to that question. He has paid no attention to it. He has said that Christ died to make the salvation of all possible, when he knows that he cannot stand upon that through this debate to save his life. He is gone if I were to stop here and give him the rest of the time. His position is that God has not made provision for the salvation of all. He will never get out of that hole. It will go down in the book with him in it, covered up with no possibility of escape.
 
Now all secured by Christ as their substitute, as their surety, will be eternally saved, because they are secured and redeemed from the curse of the law. Therefore all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved. He will not answer that question; he will not answer that argument. He will treat it as he has all the rest.

My tenth argument is founded on the unity of the Trinity. The three Persons in the Trinity co-operate, the work of each being a complement to the work of the other. God, and Christ, and the Spirit form a Divine Trinity—God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And these three operate in harmony, one being harmonious with the others in the accomplishment of the work. The three Persons in the Trinity co-operate, each being in perfect harmony and agreement with tile others. That the eternal salvation of sinners is the work of God, my friend has admitted. God saves them, and calls them, with a holy calling, not according to their works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given them in Christ before the world. (2nd Tim. 1:9.) This salvation is ascribed to Christ, whose work is in perfect harmony with that of the Father. 1st Tim. 1:5, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” The Holy Spirit is the author of the new and spiritual life produced in the soul in regeneration. The Holy Spirit can reach those represented by this part of the diagram, because it is not tied up in preachers. (John 3:63.) It is the Spirit that quickens.

1st Cor. 6:11, “And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” Where do preachers come in? It is also the work of the Holy Spirit to change the vile body in the resurrection and fashion it like unto the glorious body of Jesus. (Rom. 8:11.)

The Father, as representative of the God-head, sends His only Son to die for sinners, to reconcile them to Himself, in order that they shall be saved by His life, to bear their sins in His own body and put them away by the sacrifice of Himself, to be made a curse for them, to obtain eternal redemption for them, the remission of their sins according to the riches of His grace, and finally to be their continual Advocate at His right hand.

Christ comes and acts as the representative and surety. He gives His very life for them, and purifies them to Himself, a peculiar people, and finally ascends to his Father, having purged their sins by his death. The Holy Spirit, being one with the Father and Son, cannot fail to perform the important work assigned in the great economy of their salvation. The fullness of the God-head dwells in each of the divine persons, and this renders the work of the eternal salvation of all for whom Christ died infallibly certain, the purpose of God being carried out in all its stipulations. If the co-operation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is a harmonious work, then all for whom Christ died will he eternally saved. But the co-operation of these divine persons is a harmonious work, for these three are one. Therefore all whom Christ died will be eternally saved. There is an argument that will go down in the book, sustaining my proposition. Brother Throgmorton sees now he is unable to answer it.
 
Eleventh Argument is that positive fact stated by Paul that just as certainly as God delivered up Christ to die for sinners, he will as surely and freely give them all things else necessary for their salvation. Romans 8:32. “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” The argument of the Apostle is this: If God gave the best gift he could give in giving Christ for those for whom he died, he will not fail to give any other gift necessary to their eternal salvation. If he will not fail in guying any other gift necessary for their eternal salvation then all for whom Christ died will he eternally saved. Your friends are wondering what you are going to do with that.

1st Thess. 5:9, “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” The great purpose for which Christ died for sinners is that they should live together with him.. Cod spared him not. He will also give all things necessary to that end.

The Holy Spirit which quickens them is a gift to them. Rom. 5:5, “And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” Then if God gave Christ to die for a sinner, he will give the Holy Ghost as well. Rom. 6:23, “The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” He gives Christ to die for the sinner. He will give everything else necessary. Eternal life is necessary; therefore he will give eternal life.

As the Holy Spirit and eternal life are gifts from God, and as he will as surely and as freely give all things to those for whom he gave Christ to die, it follows that all for whom Christ died will receive the Holy Spirit and eternal life, and all who receive the Holy Spirit and eternal life will be eternally saved. Therefore all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved.

To offset that conclusion my friend must show that God will not give all things to those for whom he gave Christ to die. When he proves that, he will prove the Apostle told a falsehood when he declared that God would give all things necessary, when he declared that God gave Christ, the greatest gift that could be given for sinners.

My next argument is based upon the plain statement of Peter, that the object of Christ’s suffering for sinners is that he might bring them to God 1st Peter 3:18, “For Christ also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” In the phrase, “the just for the unjust,” the preposition here is huper, and is translated “for,” signifying protection over the unjust, a substitute for the sins for those for whom Christ died. My opponent does not say whether Christ died as a substitute or not. He has not said yet. I have proved that. He knows that he has not. To deny he died as a substitute would be to deny the positive proof I have brought forward, and so he has not said, and perhaps will not.
 

In the clause, “suffered for sins,” “for” is from the Greek word peri, which means concerning or on account of. So the meaning is, Christ also hath once suffered on account of the sins of those for whom he died, the just one in the attitude of protection over the unjust.

(Time expired.)


ELD. THROGMORTON’S THIRD REPLY
 

Ladies and Gentlemen, and Gentlemen Moderators

It is just one-half hour more and this session will close. We are having a good I time, a warm time, and Bother Daily warmed up to the work. That is right. I want you to do your best. Brother Daily I want you to put out the best that is in you and I want to show how weak it is.

Now, he says the effects of Adam’s sin rest on the infant in its mother’s arms, else it would not die. Let me repeat that to you. The effects of Adam’s sin rest on the elect infants, else they wouldn’t die! So then the elect are not clear from Adam’s transgression. After all that hot speech he has ended with the elect still under the guilt of Adam’s transgression! Try it again, brother.

But he says Rom. 5:18 doesn’t mean eternal life. Who said it did? I didn’t. Why does he want to spring a new issue on that passage? What is the issue on that passage? That the very same men, all men, who were guilty because of one offense of one man, are cleared by the righteousness of one man. That is the point. Not whether they have eternal life or not. Meet that, brother. But you can’t meet that because the passage is as plain on its face as language can state it

But he says Christ obtained eternal redemption before he entered the most holy place. That is an assumption. Here is a question he asked a while ago that slipped my mind in the former speech: “What effect does the death of Christ by itself, without any thing else, have on the sinner?” Now listen: none at all. Set that down and make all out of it you can. None at all. Let me prove that. In the 15th of 1st Corinthians: “If the dead rise not then is Christ not risen, if Christ be not risen our preaching is vain; ye are” (how?) “yet in your sins.” His death wouldn't be worth anything without his resurrection. I suppose your people are wondering what you will do with that. Well, I am, too.

But he comes to Jno. 1:9. He wants to know if Jesus lights those that come into the world and die without ever hearing the gospel. I am willing to take the Holy Spirit’s word. What does the Holy Spirit say? “He was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” Suppose you cannot tell just how the lighting is done. Suppose I can’t. It is something that Jesus Christ does for every man that comes into the world. I suppose these that never hear the gospel are meant as well as others.

But he says there was a sense in which Jesus purged our sins on the cross. Not so! The purging is done afterwards. After the resurrection, after the entrance into the Most Holy Place. That is where the purging is done. Then “having purged our sins,” or having done this for the purification of sins, “he sat down on the right hand of God.”

He tells us Daniel said that reconciliation was accomplished on the cross. I say Daniel didn’t say reconciliation was accomplished on the cross. You just look at that again. If you still think he did say it, read it out of the passage awl show us that it means it.

But he says the effectual call didn’t add him to the church; that when he was out of Christ he belonged to the church! This man, when he was dead in sin and the wrath of God was on him, was a member of Christ’s bride! Will you people take such as that? I would call it nonsense, but that wouldn’t be parliamentary. But I wouldn’t say that a man dead in sin, out of Christ, under the curse, a child of wrath, is a member of the bride of Christ! That is what he said. I don’t believe any such stuff. We become members of the bride of Christ when we become bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh: when we so believe on him that the love that is in his great heart flows into our hearts, then we are one with him, and never before! We are not in Christ before that. We are till then without God and without hope in the world. And yet Brother Daily was a member of the bride of Christ back there when he was in that lost condition!

He tells us that the conjunction in Heb. 2:9 is disjunctive, is explanatory, looks not back, but to the future. How far? Just enough to show the contrast in this passage to what t s concerning man and the son of man: “Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou hast put all things under his feet.”

But man lost that dominion. You know he fell and became corrupt. Since then we see not all things under him. The stars in their courses fight against him and the lower animals became his enemies. The earth brought forth thorns and thistles to vex him. “But,” says Paul, “we see Jesus” (here is the contrast) 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 man,” and every son of Adam. The simplicity of the child ought to see this. Paul states the fact, and gives the contrast. Jesus tasted death for every one of this race called man, this race called the son of man; but they arc not all going to be eternally saved. Brother Daily says not, and the Bible says not. Therefore his proposition has failed. He would prove it if he had the testimony.

But he says that Christ’s death on the cross paid the debt; paid it on the cross. And how did he prove it? By a song! He quoted a song. Well, it may be a mighty fine song, but the good Book must bear testimony here—not a song. Christ provided a ransom by dying on the cross, and then he took that ransom and, through the resurrection, he went into that Most Holy Place and there paid and is paying the ransom. He paid it, as I showed, by redeeming himself from that under which he had placed himself. That was new to Brother Daily. Christ took the race out from under Adam’s transgression, and now he sits there, “a mercy seat through faith in his blood.” That is what he is there for, and for every actual sinner that comes and believes on him, in that moment the ransom is paid, and in that moment Jesus Christ stands as that man’s substitute, and never before.

Brother Daily denies that Romans 5:18 means simply Adam’s sin. I think I showed this morning that it does.

He says God will not let a non-elect infant die. I don’t think that infants have anything to do with the doctrine of election. “According as he hath chosen us in him.” (Eph. 1:4) Was you one of the elect when you were out there, dead in sin? Was you one of the elect then? Under the curse and wandering from God, was you then elect? God elected you in Christ. “According as he hath chosen us in him,” not out of him. It is in Christ.

But he says my Bible gets people into heaven, not because of what Christ did, but because of what they did. That is all in his eye. Here is the sum and substance of it: God comes to the actual transgressor. He offers Christ to the actual transgressors, as they are perishing, as lost and ruined. He offers him to them as a free gift, without money and without price. The transgressor accepts Christ as God’s gift to him. And Brother Daily calls that paying for it! What would you think of the tramp that would come half starving o your back door for a “hand-out” and you give him a good meal, and after he partakes, he says, “I have paid for this”? And he didn’t do a thing but take it as a free gift and eat it. You would want to kick him out. That is the kind of logic Brother Daily has. He has it that salvation by simple faith, for nothing, is paid for by accepting it. How do you pay for it? Who ever heard of the like?

Then he comes to Gal. 3:13. I have something here on that which I want to give you specially. “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.” A curse he was for us, for believers, for it is written, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” just as soon as I became a believer I became, before God, as if I had paid the penalty for myself. Jesus had paid it for inc. Jesus had provided it for me on the cross, and then, when I believed, it was made over to me. You can understand that. Suppose you have a friend in jail with a fine of $1,000.00 on him, and he hasn’t a thing to pay with and cannot get out unless the fine is paid. You go to work to get the $1,000.00 to pay his fine for him. You dig and plod and work and study, day and night, and do everything you can to get that $1,000.00 to pay your friend’s fine. After a while you get it all.

That is for your friend, but he is still in jail. You have the money in hand for him and he is still in jail until you go to the proper court and settle the judgment according to the docket. The fine is not paid till then; no, sir! Just so, Jesus with the ransom that he provided on the cross has gone into the Most Holy Place of the universe and there for me, when I believed, paid tile debt. There for the whole race, as to the Adamic sin, he paid the debt. That is what the Book teaches. This passage, then, doesn’t teach what my brother thinks it does.

It is true Jesus gave himself for our sins, but that doesn’t mean for no one else’s sin. (1st John 2:2.) This is in the Book. What is it? “He (Christ) is the propitiation for our sins”—the elect’s sins. That is what that means. Mine and Brother Daily’s sins, and the sins of all believers. But look: “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only.” Here is Brother Daily’s mistake. The Book says it is “not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” My opponent asks, How can he be a propitiation for the sins of the actual transgressor? Just like you was for your friend who owed this $l,000.00. It doesn’t take two eyes to see that; just one will see it.

Let me quote Jno. 6:51, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the”— Elect? No sir. Of course it is for the elect, but that point is not what Jesus is talking about. “For the life of the world.” That is it. Remember in the 12th chapter of John, 47th verse, Jesus says: “I came not to judge the world but to save the world.” And he did save the world from the guilt of the Adamic transgression This is just what Paul makes it mean, when. he says that “by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”

There is another question that Brother Daily is worrying about. I had it noted and just neglected it; and now, because I am inclined to be obliging and kind and like him, I am going to answer that question. This is the substance of it: In what sense did Christ die for sinners? Did he die for them really and absolutely as their substitute, or merely for their benefit, intending his death to be a benefit to them if certain conditions should be complied with?” Here is my answer: He died for the benefit of sinners, and his death does benefit every one of them. He also intended that his death should be a further benefit to them if they should comply with certain conditions. I us Father gave him, “that whosoever believeth on him should not perish.” His Father sent him, “that the world through him might be saved”; and whoever believes on him shall be saved. For every believer he is counted as having died in his stead. His death takes the place of the believer’s death. God accepts Christ’s death for the believer and so frees the believer from eternal death. He is really the believer’s substitute. That is, God lets the believer go free and accounts that Christ’s death is the believer’s death. But he don’t let you go free until you believe.

I have a string of questions here, and one by one I shall read them :

Some for whom Christ died are not saved now, but are dead in sins. If this does not dishonor God now, how will it dishonor him if some for whom Christ died should be dead in sins in the hereafter?

Here is another: the penalty of sin is death— listen closely—if the penalty of sin is death, and Christ paid the penalty for the elect on the cross, how can one of the elect, in justice, suffer the penalty for one day? I will give you all summer to answer that; and yet Brother Daily knows he was under the penalty for years. So was I. So are all sinners dead in sins under it now. And death in sin is the penalty of sin. Suppose you owe a debt, and suppose I pay it all for you, and the creditor to whom I paid it afterwards wants to collect a dollar on it! Is that justice? And yet Brother Daily has God collecting from the elect through long years on the penalty which has already been paid. Explain that, Brother Daily. That is pertinent to this controversy. I predict that he cannot. I will tell you, the best thing is to give up that thing right here. Take what God says in his Book, that Jesus, by the grace of God, tasted death for every one—every man, every son of man.

But he says I haven’t made it possible for every man to be saved by faith. If I haven’t, it is not my fault. I quoted what the Book said. If he is dissatisfied with the Book and thinks God and Christ and preachers cannot get to these people, I can’t help it. With God all things are possible. Study that old document, the London Confession, on that question.

Here he preaches a fine sermon on the Unity of the God-head. There is hardly anything I could object to in that. God the Father does this, God the Son does this, God the Holy Spirit does this, for his people, the believers, the elect; but God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit does something for others Now if I show that, don’t I show that the Unity of the God-head is in harmony with my negative? God the Father loved all. He “so loved the world.” I think that will take in about all of them, And Christ “tasted death for every one” of them. “The Father sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world” (1st Jno. 4:14). We don’t have to depend alone on 1st Tim. 4:10. What will you do with that, from 1st John 4:14? I wonder if “Saviour” means to be the “preserver” here! Yes, sir, God the Father loved all men, and Jesus Christ the Son tasted death for every man, and came to be the Saviour of the world, and lights every man that comes into the world, and the Holy Spirit reproves the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment. See Jno. 16:7-9. Now, what about the Unity of the God head? Of course the God-head is one. That is Bible. But when we show what the God-head does not only for the elect, but for others, all is in harmony with my negative.

My brother comes to 1st Tim. 1:15 and acted like he thought he had found something. This is a fine passage. Let’s read it: “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” How many sinners are there in the world? “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). That means about all. But he says whatever God desires will be accomplished. Well, God desires Brother Daily to live a “holy life every day, but he doesn’t do it. He desires that I do and I don’t do it. Isn’t that right? Sure!

I am now going to take up Rom. 8 31-34. Here is a passage that my brother quoted, and you folks are wondering how I will answer it. I am going to show you. “What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?” (“Us” means the elect, the believers.) “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” My friend after quoting this said: “All for whom Christ died will be eternally saved.” That is not in the passage at all. Let’s see. Does this passage say that Jesus Christ died only for the elect? No, sir. Jesus died for all, that the elect, the believers, should be saved. That is the way the Bible states it. Read John 3:16. Believers are the elect; but the love that gave Jesus was for the world. Jesus was given not only that believers should be saved, but that the world through him might be saved; not should be saved, you understand. If, then God gave Jesus Christ for us all, how shall he not give to us all things that we need? This is Paul’s thought. Of course he intercedes especially for his people. But this does not mean that he intercedes for none other. See 1st John 2:2, “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Now, as to 1st. Peter 3:18: “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” That suffering didn’t bring us when he suffered. He suffered that he might bring us. You see that. Now let’s look. This passage declares that Jesus “once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust”; but it does not say for how many he suffered. It does tell the character of those he suffered for—the unjust; and the common sense interpretation would be for all the unjust, but I am not saying now as to that. The purpose was that we might be brought to God. This, however, was not all the purpose of his suffering. We as actual transgressors were not brought to Christ when he suffered. Put a pin there. Not when he suffered, but 1,800 years after he suffered. He suffered that he might later on, in our lifetime, bring us to God. Isn’t that right? Yes, sir! Years ago he suffered for John R. Daily, but the suffering at the time did not bring Brother Daily to God: and for years in his life-time Brother Daily was as far from God s anybody; but God’s Spirit and truth reached him, and by repentance and faith brought him to God. Never before. Tell us if it was. The meaning of the passage is this:

Christ suffered, the just for the unjust, to make it possible for God to bring the unjust to himself, or to make it possible for God to be just and justify the believer. In Other words, Jesus gave himself and suffered for the sins of the world, that men through him might he saved. That is as plain as the nose on a man’s face.

Here I notice Brother Daily, said that all whose sins are ‘covered by Christ’ will be saved. Yes, sir; so they will. But when does Christ put the covering on? When we receive the atonement. Atonement means covering—at least, that is one of its meanings—and the covering—the atonement covers us—is put over us when we believe; never before.

(Time expired.)

Last Updated ( Wednesday, 18 October 2006 )
< Previous   Next >

Purpose

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.