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

ELD. DAILY’S FOURTH SPEECH
 

Respected Audience, worthy Moderators and beloved Opponent:

I desire to feel grateful to God that we enjoy the privilege of meeting again this morning for the purpose of continuing the investigation of God’s Holy Word.

There were handed me yesterday two questions in the last speech by my worthy opponent, to which shall first give attention.

The first is: “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?”

It is just as he illustrated his idea of salvation yesterday by reference to a man who had been put in jail under a fine of $1,000.00, who was entirely unable to escape from the jail unless the $1,000.00 should be paid. When the $1,000.00 was paid and the court dockets were cleared on account of the payment being made, the man was still in jail, he said. His idea seems to be, however, in regard to the salvation of the sinner, that after all the provision has been made, the payment and. all preparation made, the sinner must then believe that it is made, It seems to me to be ridiculous to suppose that the man in jail must believe that his fine has been paid or he will never get any benefit out of the payment. He will never be benefited unless he believes. I desire not only to show the ridiculousness of my opponent’s position here, but to show just how this matter is, by calling your attention to Isa. 49:8-10, “Thus sayeth the Lord, in an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee.” The Lord is here speaking to Christ. God the Father is addressing the Saviour. “And in a day of salvation have I helped thee.” Still addressing the Saviour, “And I will pre serve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritage.” Still addressing the Saviour, “That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth.” He makes the payment, this Saviour does, after which he is able to say to the prisoner, “Go forth because I made the payment.” If he should require them to believe in order that the payment be made, then the payment couldn’t be made until they believed, which is ridiculous, and any one with any degree of intelligence can see the ridiculousness of. it. The idea of believing a thing to be true in order to make it true, is too absurd for an intelligent mind to accept.

“That thou mayest say to the prisoner, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places.” “They shall not hunger nor thirst; either shall the heat nor sun smite them; for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them.” Now notice:

The position of my opponent is that sinners are in prison under a fine that they cannot pay; that some one must pay for them. The large majority of the human race are in such a situation as indicated by this chart (page 58), which I wish these boys here could all see (referring to missionary preachers) in such a condition that it is impossible for them ever to have faith! Utterly impossible! And yet God suspends their salvation upon their having faith! Suspending their salvation upon that which they never can do! Taking the absurd position that the debt is not paid unless they believe it is paid and the payment is their belief. Belief as to the payment! Their belief is the covering of the debt, and makes Christ’s death a propitiation for their sins!

The next question given is: “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?” I suppose he means dead in their sins forever. That is answered really in. the answer that I have given to the first question, but in addition to that I want to say this: That if the ransom is paid for sinners, if the fine is liquidated and the docket cleared on that account for sinners, and those sinners remain in jail forever, it would be to the everlasting disgrace of the law of the country under which they are held as prisoners, the debt being paid. Answer it if you dare. You may try.

I want to call your attention to another predicament into which my worthy opponent plunged yesterday and from which he will never be able to extricate himself. A corrupt tree, an alien sinner, cannot bring forth good fruit. (Matt. 7:18) Faith is a good fruit, for the Apostle says it is a fruit of the Spirit. Therefore the alien sinner cannot bring forth faith. The conclusion of this syllogism will stand, because neither premise can be destroyed. It follows, therefore, that the alien sinner cannot bring forth the good fruit of faith. His theory requires him to do what he cannot do in order that the death of Christ be effectual in his salvation. The death of Christ will do him no good according to your statement, unless he complies with this condition, which this syllogism shows he cannot comply with. No alien sinner can ever he saved upon your plan. But I have something more that is interesting for my friend. It is this: He made the statement yesterday, in one speech that the death of Christ made salvation possible for all mankind. Millions die and go to hell who had no possible chance to believe. Let him reconcile these two statements. Let him deny the first one which he made yesterday, and take it back, and then we will excuse him for having said it. Let him deny the second if he dares. If he denies neither one, he will die without ever having reconciled them. Now don’t blame Brother Throgmorton for not doing that.. He is not to be blamed for not, doing what he cannot do.

If the infant in its mother’s arms is not guilty of Adamic sin and has none of its own, as you say, please explain how your statement can be true, that all the race are guilty.

Now, Brother Throgmorton has been repeating a great deal, and he will continue to repeat a great deal. I will not have to repeat a great deal, because I have so much to bring forward, as you will see as this debate progresses.

But I have some more here that I want to give you on the term “the whole world,” as found in 1st John 2:2. According to his position, Christ died for all the sins of all the human family just alike. Then he died for those who were in hell when he died, who had died and were lost before he died, and he now stands as the propitiation for their sins. The passage says he is now the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and so if Brother Throgmorton is right, he is the propitiation for the sins of all the lost, those who had died before his death and those who have died since. He is now their propitiation, being their advocate in heaven! The term “whole world” is assumed to mean the entire human family. It is an assumption without proof. But his position on Rom. 3:25, where God is said to have set Christ forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, is that faith is a condition in order for Christ’s being a propitiation for sins. That is a positive contradiction of his position on this text, for all have not faith. Since all have not faith, and since faith, according to his view, is a condition of Christ’s being the propitiation for sins, It follows as an unavoidable conclusion that the whole world, in 1st John 2 ;2, does not mean the entire human family.

The key to this passage is in Isaiah 49:6: “And he said, It is a light thing.” addressing Christ, “that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and restore the preserved of Israel; I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of earth.” This key shows the “world” means Gentiles. The salvation which God has prepared unto the end of the earth. Wherever this salvation which God has provided reaches, whoever are saved by it, are included in the propitiation and advocacy of Christ. This included all the world—that is the Gentiles as well as the Jews; in fact, some of every kindred and tongue and people and nation (Rev 5:9) Christ’s propitiation and advocacy secures his mercy. This is the design of his glorious work, and in this he cannot fail. So all for whom he is the propitiation and advocate, the world of Gentiles as well as Jews, will be eternally saved.

He has argued at some length in Romans, 5th chapter. Now Adam was a figure of Christ as stated in the 14th verse, and in the 17th to the 19th verse in that chapter, the Apostle shows that as Adam stood the head and representative of all that should ever be born of him—that is, his family—so Christ stood as the head and representative of all that should be born of him—that is, his family. That is, in Adam all that he represented were condemned, so in Christ all that he represents should receive justification; that is, eternal life, and, hence should live forever. So Christ having died for those he represented, will give to them the justification of life, which means eternal life, and they will all be eternally saved.

He says the death of Christ would have amounted to nothing had he not risen. His resurrection is not what made his death really effective, for his death was virtuous, I mean have virtue in it, as soon as he died. His resurrection showed his death to be effective. Had he not been resurrected from the dead, it would have been demonstrated that his death was not satisfactory. It was necessary to show that his death had virtue in it. If the grave had held him until today, we could not have worshipped him; he would have been a dead Jesus.

He speaks of the light that lighteth every man that comes into the world, and I asked I him how millions upon millions that go down to endless hell without having hear the gospel preached were enlightened. He hasn’t told me and he will not dare to during this debate. Were the millions that go down to an endless hell without hearing the gospel ever enlightened by this true light, and if so, how they were they enlightened by it?

He wants to know if  I was a member of Christ’s bride and one of the elect when I was dead in sins? I was. The angel said, “He shall save his people from their sins.” Then they were his people before they were saved. It is said he laid down his life for the sheep; then they were his sheep before he laid down his life for them. Speaking of his people who were chosen in Christ, David says (Psalms 139:16) “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” Was I elected in sin? If I was elected, God elected me. I didn’t elect myself. He chose me before the foundation of the world. And if you say they have to believe to be chosen, you have them believing before the foundation of the world. It looks like it is almost the Two Seed Doctrine.

The Trinity, he admits, does something for the saved. He didn’t take up that argument and try to show that the different parts of it were not well taken, but just passed it by with the notice that the Trinity did something for all the rest, and so those that go down to hell had just as much done for them by God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit, as those who go to heaven. Why do some then go down? Because those that go to heaven did something the others don’t do. That is why.

When I closed my last speech I was on my twelfth argument, which 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. He gave some little attention to the term “that he might bring them to God” If he had waited until I had finished the argument, I would have saved him the trouble. He wouldn’t have known what to say.

1st Peter 3:18, “For Christ also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” The phrase, “the just for the unjust,” the preposition huper in the Greek is translated “for,” signified protection, over the unjust ones for whom he died, a substitute of the just one over unjust ones for whom he died. This is what that signifies.

In the clause “suffered for sins,” “for” is translated from 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 ones for whom he died, that he might bring those unjust ones to God. The potential verb “might bring’ is subjunctive in the Greek prosagage, “he might bring.” This verb follows the conjunction hina, which means “in order that.” The subjunctive verb following hina in the Greek signifies purpose, definite purpose, and you said yesterday that God’s purpose was absolute and would be fulfilled; it was, then, Christ’s purpose in suffering for the sins of those for whom he died to bring them all to God. It was not to try to bring them or help to bring them, or give them a chance to come, or place them off where they couldn’t have a chance to come, but to bring them, all of them, to God. They were sinners, and enemies, and without strength, and therefore they could not come of themselves. Jesus said, “No man cometh unto the Father but by me,” unless by me, unless brought by me.

(Mr. Throgmorton: Did you say that the verb is subjunctive?) Answer: Yes, sir.

As his purpose is to bring those for whom he died to God, that purpose cannot fail, for he is infinite in wisdom and power. He will bring them from death to life. He will bring them from condemnation to justification, from Satan to God. If he does not bring them they will never come, for they cannot. This glorious purpose will be fulfilled when all for whom he died shall be presented before God a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, when he shall finally say, “Behold I, and the children whom God hath given me.” (Heb 2:13). The Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost will then rejoice in the continuation of this wonderful work designed in the secret chambers of eternity and successfully accomplished by their harmonious operations. As it is the greatest joy of a man to see the designs he has long projected and anticipated brought to a happy home; how much more will it be to the joy of the adorable triune God when all for whom the Captain of their salvation died shall be brought to glory by him. It would be to the everlasting shame of the Three-one God if this purpose of the greatest of all his undertakings should fail. All other achievements of his would be forever overshadowed by such a failure! Disgrace would then mark his name forever! His word would be proved false when he declared, “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure!”

Christ suffered for the sins of those for whom he died for the purpose of bringing them to God, and all who are brought to God will be eternally saved. He will bring them all to God, for his power is sufficient and he is unchangeable in his purpose. Therefore all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved.

Now I haven’t time for another argument in this speech. I want to call your attention to another thing that was brought up yesterday by my opponent. In speaking of Jesus weeping over the condition of Jerusalem, because, as he supposed, Jesus was not able to save them, not able to save them, wanted to do it, gave his life to do it. and absolutely could not. Jesus weeping because he couldn’t do what he wanted to do in the work of the salvation of all of these people! Now listen: If Jesus wept on that account, may we not conclude that God the Father in heaven, Jesus Christ, the Divine advocate there, and the Holy Spirit, are now weeping over countless millions that have gone down to endless hell, whom they could not save! And as they might be supposed to be weeping in heaven, and as the children of God, in love with the Father, are in sympathy, they would join in the wailing, and all heaven would ring with wailings!! God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and all who are saved in heaven, weeping because God could not save the countless millions that went to hell!! Draw down the curtains!!

He accused me yesterday of finding fault with the Word of God. I am not finding fault with the Word of God. I am finding fault with his absurd, irrational theory, unscriptural because it is absolutely absurd. The thing has fallen, and will stay fallen, for from this awful predicament my opponent is unable to escape. How different is the truth, that all that ever go down to, hell and suffer were everlasting haters of God, enemies by wicked works against him, the last one of them! God is under no obligations to them, and lets them go in the course they wanted to go. They continue on in that course until death, a justly deserved death, while those saved in heaven, saved by the grace of God, will praise God with joyful hearts forever there, though they were entirely undeserving of it and it was entirely unmerited on their part. How different! We rejoice today in the grand and glorious truth that heaven will be full of joyful company, born of Christ, redeemed by the blood of Christ, praising his name forever, while those punished will be there because they deserve to be, and God was under no obligations to provide for them. That is the truth of the matter. My brother is repeating. He will continue to repeat. He will hammer upon 1st John 2:2, and some other things; but, my friends, I have enough to just keep on. I promise to bring up something every time which he cannot answer, and that this day’s debate will close with still plenty on hand that I could have used, that would have been to his ruin as he stands upon the opposite side of this question. I respect my brother. When we parted the last time before we met here, I remarked to him, “I think we will meet again.” He said: “We will, but we will meet as friends.” Thank you for your attention.

(Time expired.)


ELD. THROGMORTON’S FOURTH REPLY

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I cannot help wondering, if Brother Daily had so much matter, why he didn’t use it, instead of telling you what a failure I had made. We think the people here have intelligence enough to see whether I make a failure. You needn’t waste so much of your time. If you have so much matter that you wish to get before the people, use your time for that. That is friendly advice, given because we are friends.

Well, he says he is glad to continue. So am I. Two men glad. He began by noticing one of my questions, to this effect: That if Christ paid the debt of the elect on the cross, how can one for whom he paid it suffer afterwards for one day? Did you notice what a stumble he made? Did he really answer it? No, sir. Now the point is this: he agrees that the elect suffer one day, and more, too. He suffered himself for many days before God saved him, and yet he has been teaching you that his debt was paid absolutely on the cross 1,800 years before. And has God been collecting a part of this again off of him in his life-time? It is certainly unjust to collect again a part of a debt all of which has been paid. Brother Daily says it is like the man in jail, until his fine is paid! That yields the point. Money provided to pay a fine does not pay it till the money is paid over. Just as soon as it is paid the man must go free. To keep him in jail for years afterwards would be false imprisonment. Jesus on the cross provided the ransom for the sinner, but payment is not paid until that day when the sinner goes free. When does he go free?

“‘Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,

And grace my fears relieved;

How precious did that grace appear,

The hour I first believed.”

Up to that hour I was paying a part of this penalty of death. As soon as I believed, the whole thing was paid by Jesus Christ, and there was no more against me. Brother Daily says I think that the debt is never paid until I believe it is paid. Now I am sorry Brother Daily doesn’t understand. Saving faith is not so much believing a fact as trusting a person. When I came to the end of my own strength and trusted myself upon Jesus Christ and what he had done for me, that was saving faith; that trusting of myself into his hands, and that trusting wasn’t the saving. God saved me through that when I trusted myself passively into his hands; I wasn’t saved before that, but in the hour, in the moment in which I first believed, the debt was paid. Of course the provision to pay it was made long ago when Christ died on the cross and when he took the ransom into the Most Holy Place.

My opponent goes to Isa. 49:10, and finds the idea that after Jesus make payment he says to the prisoners, “Go out;” Certainly; but when does he say, “Go out’? You was a prisoner a few years ago, until that “hour in which you first believed.’ Jesus never said to you, “Go out,” until that moment in which you believed. What was you doing up to that moment? Suffering the penalty of death in trespasses and sins! God, according to your doctrine, collecting a debt, or a part of it, off of you that had already been paid! That is unjust. I think you can see that. You didn’t touch the point in question at all.

According to my position, he says that a large majority cannot have faith. Suppose this was a fact. Would that affect the truth of the doctrine that God saves through faith? Not a particle of it. Why lug in that question? If that were so, it doesn’t tend to establish your proposition.

He says that, according to my position, belief is the covering of the debt. Suppose I owe you $100.00 and you come and offer me a receipt in full for it, and I take the receipt. Is that my paying the debt? Why, of course not. It is a matter of grace on your part; and I go free. So when I accept God’s gift of Jesus Christ to me, for nothing, my debt is paid; not by me, but Jesus paid it. So faith is not a covering at all. What Jesus did is the covering. “Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered” (Rom. 4:6-7). “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly” his faith is counted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).

But then my next question: If death in sins now does not dishonor God so far as the elect are concerned, how can it dishonor him in the hereafter? Did you notice what he said here? He said, “If the debt is paid it would be to the everlasting disgrace of the Creator not to let the debtor go free.” That is what you said; and yet back there, a few years ago, you hadn’t gone free And you say your debt was paid 1,800 years ago. How was that? According to Brother Daily himself, it was to the everlasting dishonor of the Father in heaven. That is what bad doctrine leads a man into such statements as that.

He says a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Therefore, the alien sinner cannot believe, cannot have faith, because faith is a good fruit. Well, he cannot of himself. Brother Daily wants to get over on the next proposition. The sinner cannot of himself believe. “No man can come to Christ (or believe on Christ) except the Father draws him.” Of course he can’t. God does the drawing but who does the coming, Brother Daily? The sinner. The man that is drawn. Put that down; that is the truth. You will learn something if you put that down and study it.

But he says that, according to my doctrine, salvation is through faith, and when I say that salvation is possible to all men through faith, he wants to know how I reconcile it, when millions have no chance to believe! Suppose that was so. Just suppose that was so! What has that to do with this question? Suppose it was fact that some have no chance to believe what has that got to do with the argument on this question? But then, as to the question of possibility, as I said yesterday, “with God all things are possible.” And it is not an impossibility that this message of salvation should have gone and should go to the utter most parts of the earth. You remember that John came “that all men through him might believe”; and so far as the gospel goes, that is the purpose of it.

He asks, “How is it true that all the race are guilty, if infants in their mothers’ arms are clear?” They are not guilty now of the Adamic transgression. Christ provided for that on the cross and paid for it when he took away the sin of the world.

Brother Daily says that Brother Throgmorton repeats, and that he doesn’t have to! We all see that. No, he doesn’t repeat!!

On 1st John 2:2, Brother Daily says: The “whole world” means “the ends of the earth.” That is the first time I ever knew that the “end of a thing” is the whole thing, or that “both ends are the whole thing.” He finds one of the prophets where God’s peace goes to the ends of the earth. He says that means the whole earth. The ends are not the whole thing. Here is a stick (holds up stick) that stick Brother Daily makes so much racket with; there is one end, and there is the other end.. Now are the two ends the whole stick? That is your logic. But suppose I should grant that the whole world doesn’t mean the whole human family in 1st john 2:2! “And he is the propitiation for our sins.” Whose sins? Christians’; that is, the elect’s. What about the rest? “And not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” Somebody outside of us. It means some body besides the elect. It means the human family, outside of the elect. But he says Christ cannot be a propitiation unless men believe. According to my interpretation of Rom 3:26, he is the propitiation just like the provision to pay the debt is the payment of the debt. But the debt isn’t paid until the provision is paid over. The friend (in the illustration) had the money in hand; it was for the payment of the fine, but he didn’t pay it until it was turned over.

But now we come to the sight! and I don’t wonder Brother Daily hesitated. He said, on Rom. 5:17-19, which includes that 18th verse, that as Adam stood head of his family, so Christ stands head of his family. He read that between the lines. It is not in the reading, and you noticed he could hardly get along in reading. He hesitate and stumbled. Brother Daily is a man of ability and he saw he was walking in the mist there. Let me quote it and see if it is as he said. Paul’s words are plain enough: “As by the offense of one man judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one (Jesus Christ) the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” It doesn’t say two families. Paul is talking about one family. Yet my friend, blinded by his proposition, reads into this scripture two families, two sets of “all men,” when evidently they are the same “all.” He says Christ’s resurrection didn’t make his death effectual. I think the last verse of Rom. 4 settled that: “Who was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification.” Put that down. I want you to learn a great deal in this debate. On John 1:9, Brother Daily wants to know how the millions in heathendom are enlightened when they have no chance to believe. Suppose I can’t tell you how the enlightening was done. You can’t tell how God drew you. You don’t know the motions of the Spirit. “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh nor whither it goeth.” This is incomprehensible; it is unexplainable. And now my opponent wants me to explain how it is that God has given light to all men. I take the fact as God states it. What is the fact? “He (Christ) was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” If I wanted to designate every member of the human race, could I do it in stronger language? I don’t have to explain how it is done, but it is done. God says it is done, and that is enough for me. It ought to be for you, Brother Daily.

He says he was a member of Christ’s bride when he was dead in sins. When you was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh” when you was under the curse, when you was on the road to hell, when you was paying part of the penalty that was due you as a sinner. You was a member of Christ’s bride!! That is ridiculous enough in itself to be its own refutation. He says God knew us before we were born. Of course God knew everything from all eternity, but that doesn’t make you a member of the bride when you was dead in sins and a child of wrath, even as others.

But Brother Daily says he was elected when he was in sin. What does Paul say? “According as he has chosen us in him!” Not in sin, but in him. Get that down; “According as he hath chosen us in him.” Not in sin. My friend doesn’t seem to think that God could look forward and see a man in Christ and choose him. You people can see that; you all do see it. Chosen in Christ. Brother Daily says “chosen in sin.” And yet that doesn’t affect the proposition before us particularly.

He says my doctrine looks like “Two Seed” doctrine. And some slapped his hands. That is a great point, of course. You had to cheer him. Do it again! No, don’t for the moderator says don’t.

Then he tells you I tried to show that the God-head did the same for all. Mistaken again, Brother Daily. Not the same. God does more for his people than he does for other men. He is doing more for his people now than for other men. But my point is that he tasted death for every man.

I am a little in the chart business myself.

 

 

CHART

 

JOHN R. DAILY

 

 

 

All for whom Christ died will be eternally saved.

 

 

THE BIBLE

Jesus tasted death for every man. See Heb 2:9

He is the Saviour of all men, but specially of them that believe. See 1 Tim 2:10

He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. See 1 John 2:2

Some shall go away into everlasting punishment. See Matt 25:46.

 

 

I want to show you the contrast here between my friend and the Bible. You see over there is what John R. Daily says. What does the Bible say? “Jesus tasted death for every man.” If that is right, Brother Daily says every man will be eternally saved. But he tells us every man will not be eternally saved! The Bible says that Christ “is the Savior of all men, but specially of those that believe.” The Bible says he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. And the same I saw some “shall go away into ever lasting punishment.” Therefore Brother Daily’s proposition cannot be true. Hear! “He tasted death for every one,” hut some of them shall go away into everlasting punishment. That chart is enough to refute my friend’s proposition in the mind that will take the straight meaning of the straight words. Of course if you won’t that; the case is different.

I have some negative matter that I want to introduce in form here, and the first statement I make is this:

Christ’s mission and death were for the world in general. You see I am repeating. It is line upon line. John 3:16, “God so loved the world.” God’s love was for the world in general. When the term world refers to mankind, unless there is some modification it means all Adam’s posterity, not just two or three “ends of the earth.” Sometimes when modified it means all living at the time, except these that have been chosen of God and separated into another family. Sometimes it means all the race then living. Sometimes it means all the race for all time, except God’s people. It never means God’s people only. Put that down. Christ was sent to save the world. 1st John 4:14. “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the son to be the Savior of the world.” Hear that same John in that same 1st John (5:19), “and we know that we the elect are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.” But John says we have seen it and we testify to it “that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world” And Jesus says, “If any man hear my words and believeth not, I judge him not, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.” (John 12:47). Who are the world? Those that believe not. Jesus says he doesn’t judge them: he didn’t come to judge but to save them. It is to save them all. My friend says not. Jesus says he came to save them. Why doesn’t he save them? They don’t believe on him. Don’t forget Jesus said that, concerning those that believe not, “If any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him not;” for “I came not to judge the world but to save the world.” That is in John 12:47. Before men believe they are of the world; when they believe they are counted no more of the world. Jesus said of his apostles, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:16). He said, “I have chosen you out of the world” (John 15:19). Before they were separated from the world, they were part of it even as others. See Eph. 2:1-3, “And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein, in, time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience; among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others” God loved the world before his people were separated from it, and he loved it afterwards. Between those separated from the world and those left John distinguishes thus (1st John 5 :19): “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.” Speaking of those now separated from the world, Paul described them thus (Eph. 3:11—12), “Wherefore remember that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” And yet my opponent says that they were then members of the bride of Christ!

Let us see what Peter says of them after they were separated from the world (1st Peter 2:9-10): “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light; which in time past were not a people, but now, the people of God; which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.” What are you going to do with that? And yet he has it that back there, before they had obtained mercy, they were members of Christ’s bride! Debt all paid! Salvation sealed! They locked up in the eternal life and the key to the lock thrown in the well! Saved forever. That kind of people! My! My!

Yes, I was about to forget that subjunctive mode business. What does the subjunctive mo e mean? When I went to school and taught school it meant doubt. You see I called on him to know whether he meant subjunctive or potential. He said “subjunctive.” “That he might bring us to God,” in 1st Peter 3:18, he says is “subjunctive.” That proves it uncertain whether some for whom Christ suffered come to God! The peculiarity of the subjunctive means power and possibility. You know that.

He says it will be to the shame of the Triune God if one is lost for whom Christ died. Well, I will tell there are some things that God cannot do. God cannot lie; and God has pledge himself in the person of his Son. “If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” “He that believeth not shall be damned.” Can God, justify an unbeliever? Say whether he can or not. I say he cannot, for he cannot lie. So he cannot save Jerusalem in unbelief. No.

If I have time, I have another thing I want to show. Here is a chart of the tabernacle 

Look at this picture of the tabernacle. See the outside, which is the outer court. See the entrance out there. See the altar of burnt offering. See the entrance into the Holy Place. See the Most Holy Place, the Sanctum Sanctorum, the Holiest of All. Into this Holiest of All the high priest went once each year, and there made atonement. I will leave it so you can see it. (Mr. Daily, stepping forward and looking at the chart: “I am not afraid; I want to see it.” Mr. Throgmorton “Well, don’t get between me and the audience.”)

Thus did the high priest, according to the 16th of Leviticus, “He went into the Most Holy Place and took the blood of the goat of sin offering. That goat of sin offering was a type of Christ crucified. The high priest carried the blood into the Most Holy Place, and never went into that place without blood. He took the blood of the goat that was slain and went into the Most Holy Place and there made an atonement—in the Most Holy Place. Now my point is that Jesus Christ took his own blood which was shed outside the camp, and through the veil, in his death and resurrection, he took that blood into heaven itself, the Most Holy Place of the universe, and there made and is making the atonement; there makes the covering for sins.

(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.