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

ELD. DAILY’S SEVENTH SPEECH

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I do appreciate so much your patience, and I know that my friend on the opposite side unites with me in this appreciation. I am sure it is because you are interested that you are patient, and that makes us think, of course, that we are giving you something that is interesting. So just be patient, now, until two more speeches are made this afternoon. It will not take us long to speak an hour, half-hour each, if we will hurry.

He wants to know where I get my authority for saying that all infants that die in infancy are saved. That sounds like he disputes it. When a man calls for my authority, the inference, of course, would be that he rather doubts it. If not, why should he call for my authority? Now if I were to take the time I think I could prove that infants that die in infancy are saved. I will just make this general statement, however, without entering further into proof that everything that is said of that class in God’s word is favorable to it. David wept and fasted while his child was sick. He was glad in his heart, and so quit weeping when he learned that his child was dead, because he had the assurance that he could go to the child. All infants that die in infancy are saved with an everlasting salvation, and, therefore, they belong to the elect, since the elect are saved. That is plain.

But Christ, he says, loved the church and gave himself for it, and says he loved all the others just as well and gave himself for them too. Loved the whole world, loved everybody in the world, everybody that ever lived in the world, gave himself for the whole world, and yet arranged a system of salvation that confines him to a very narrow territory of the world, and gives the devil liberty, without restraining him, to operate all over the world and with all of the human race without being tied up in Bibles, or preachers, or anything else! But those he loved of the world, if he loved those that never hear the gospel preached enough to die for them, why did he not arrange that they should hear the gospel, that a chance might be made for the them? Why did he give the devil the whole territory, and confine himself to a limited part of the territory so he could not operate outside of that, if he loved all the rest as well as he loved the church? Why did the Apostle say he hated Esau? I want my brother to answer that in his next speech.

As to Acts 17:29, I want to read the 28th verse: “For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said. For we are also his offspring.” Offspring or children, those born of the parent, of whom they are the offspring. “For as much, then, as we are the off spring of God, we ought not to think that the God-head is like unto gold, or silver, or stone; graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.” God commanded all men everywhere to repent, to turn away from their idolatrous worship, such as the Athenians were engaged in, all men, Gentiles as well as Jews, to repent of their idols and turn away from them to the worship of the one true and living God.

He asks a question: “Can a man believe on Christ without believing he died for him?” Again I ask, Does a man have to believe that Christ died for him to make it a fact? If a man believes that Christ died for him and that is a fact, did not Christ die for that man long before he believed it, and does the man, when he believes, believe according to God’s mighty power which he exerted when he raised him from the dead? Cannot God reach those in unbelief by the same power? You say God cannot. I say again he does, and the regeneration of every sinner is a demonstration of the fact.

He says that Christ is the Saviour of the damned in hell by saving all of them from the guilt of Adam’s transgression. He has not proved, neither can he prove, that Christ by his death atoned for the entire human race by satisfying for Adam’s transgression. There is not a text in the Bible from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelations that says or intimates that Christ by his death on the cross atoned for the Adamic transgression for all the human race. If Christ could pay the debt on the cross for the Adamic transgression, I ask why could he not pay the debt of actual sins for sinners on the cross? You say he did pay the debt of the Adamic transgression on the cross. Do you have any proof that he atoned for, the entire race? In Rom. 5th chapter, the reference to which you called attention do not prove that, but to the contrary, for it has reference to those “who receive abundance of ace and the gift of righteousness,” and not the entire Adamic family. He says that is the work of God that the sinner believes on Christ. Well if that is God’s work, and the sinner believes because God works in him to believe, why then cannot God reach them in unbelief and cause them to believe? You said he had to believe before God could reach him. There you are in the hole. If God works the belief in the sinner causing the sinner to believe, then cannot God reach him in unbelief and cause him to believe? Yet you take the position that God could not save a sinner until that sinner believed! Draw down the curtains!!

If God draws the sinner he says the sinner may not come. If you should try to draw me out of this room, and I didn’t go, you wouldn’t draw me. You couldn’t do it if you should try, if you had your feet both well. If you should try to draw me out at that door you couldn’t do it. If you should try to draw me out of this room, and I didn’t go, you wouldn’t draw me. If God draws the sinner to Christ the sinner comes to Christ. Your brethren see that, and so do you. If the sinner is drawn to Christ by God, then the sinner comes to Christ. If God tries to draw him and doesn’t, he only tries! You have a God that tries, and you say he cannot do it until the sinner comes by faith! If that is so, he cannot do it, for the sinner must first come to Christ.

In reference to praying for all men, for all who are in authority, Christ refused to pray for all men universally. John 17:9, “I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.” But those for whom Christ dies he goes to Heaven and intercedes for, and as to the offering being made and then the atonement, I have this to say: The moment Christ was received in Heaven by the Father, there was a recognition of what he had done manifested by his reception, and just as certain as Christ vas received in Heaven, the bride will be received. For if a parent should refuse to receive the bride, if the bride comes and isn’t received by those parents, the bridegroom would object to being received. And in receiving Christ the Father engages to receive the bride, for they stand as one in him. Christ intercedes in Heaven for all he made the offering for, just as the Jewish high Priest always went in and interceded for the very ones for whom those offerings were made. The making of the offerings and the intercession of the priest was the duty of the priest, and the sins were forgiven in every case where the offerings were made by the high priest for the sins of the individual or for the sins of the people collectively. There wasn’t a single failure in that, and so in the anti-type Christ.

What does perish mean? It doesn’t always mean to perish in hell. I proved to you by the context that the brother for whom Christ died was the brother in the church, and he cannot answer it if he lived until dooms-day and tried all the time. The perishing in that case is in a different sense from perishing eternally. We perish in the sense of losing our religious enjoyment in the service of the Lord, by disobeying his commands. There is a perishing, by losing our enjoyment. It is not perishing in hell, and he cannot prove that it is. He takes an affirmative, and if he could prove it , he would  prove apostasy.

But he says we can resist Spirit by sinning, there fore all can resist it in the call. How about that? When God calls us from death to life, can we, being dead, resist the call? We might, after he had called us to life, resist in the sense of disobeying the commands, but could we resist the call from death to life? The idea of a dead person resisting the call! The Apostle says, 2nd Chapter of Ephesians. “You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins:” The idea of the sinner resisting that call because we may disobey Gods commands, is too light to weigh anything. He is making out God trying and failing, and Christ trying and failing, and the Holy Spirit trying and failing. I do not believe in a Triune God that fails.

Second Cor. 5:15, “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge that if one died for all, then were all dead ; and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.” This cannot mean that he died for all who are dead in sins, for that would make his dying for them the cause of their being dead in sins. Were they not dead in trespasses and in sins independent of his death for them? His dying for them didn’t cause them to be dead in trespasses and sins! It did cause them to be dead in some sense. In what sense? If one died for all then were all dead, means that he died for all that were dead in sins,—then his dying for them is the cause. No, it doesn’t mean that at all. All were dead in sins, and the death of Christ has nothing to do with that. All would have been dead in sins and would have forever continued in that state if Christ had not died. So his dying for sinners did not cause them to be dead in sins. The Greek shows that all died for whom Christ died. “If one for all died, then they all died is the literal rendering. I want to repeat that. “If one for all died, then they all died,” They died because he died. How? His dying for them was the cause of their dying, but in what sense are they dead because he died for them? He died as their substitute, as the preposition huper shows, and they died because of his death. As he, their substitute, died for them, he died just as the substitute going to the war. If one takes the place of one in the army, then his death is the death of the one for whom he goes as a substitute. Christ died as their substitute, and for that reason we are dead because Christ died for us. All for whom Christ died are dead in that sense, and therefore all are going to be finally saved. That is an argument in my favor.

I shall not take the time to recapitulate. The book will show the arguments, and recapitulation would not be of as much profit as to introduce what new arguments I can in support of this question.

I was treating my 17th argument when I took my seat at the close, which was: All for whom Christ died shall be eternally saved, because the eternal perfection of all for whom Christ died is necessarily connected with his death for them.

Christ by the offering of his body once for all did perfect forever those for whom he died, by accepting their sins or by bearing their sins in his own body on the cross. Not one shall ever be lost whom Christ has forever perfected by this offering made for them. In him they have a perfect sacrifice for their sins, a perfect righteousness for their covering, a perfect advocate with the Father continually perfection of all they need to bring them home to glory and present them faultless and spotless before the throne of God. Therefore all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved.

My 18th argument is that all for whom Christ died are declared to he dead because he died for them. They are dead in him as their substitute. It is said that they that are dead are freed from sin. Rom. 6:7. Those who are free from sin shall be eternally saved, therefore, all for whom Christ died shall be eternally saved.

Second Cor. 5:14-15, “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.” This text declares that the reason for all being dead is that Christ died for them. Their death in sin cannot be meant, for that is not caused by Christ’s dying for them. No other death can be meant than their death in him as their substitute, for no other death could be caused by his dying for them. Those for whom he died are dead, all of them, because he died for them. If he had not died for them they would have died the eternal death. His death being accepted as their death, they are dead because he died for them. So Paul says, “I am crucified with Christ.” Rom. 6:8, “Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him;” All for whom Christ died are dead because he died for them. All who are dead in this sense are freed from sin, shall live with him and shall he eternally saved. Therefore all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved.

My next argument is founded on the covenant relation between Christ and the people he came to save and for whom he died, represented as Shepherd and sheep. They are declared in the Scriptures to have been his sheep before receiving eternal life, and before being brought to God by him. Jesus said, “I give unto them eternal life.” John 10:28, and “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring.” This shows they were his sheep before receiving eternal life, or before being brought to the Father by him. This relation, therefore, is not a vital, but a covenant relation.

The sword of divine justice, that would otherwise have found its satisfaction in the everlasting destruction of the sheep, was called forth by Jehovah and required to strike his own Son with the death blow. Zach. 13:7. “Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts; smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered ; and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.” Jesus says “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” John 10:11, and “I lay down my life for the sheep.” John 10:15. There shall be a final separation as taught in Matt. 25:31-34, “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; and he shall set the sheep on his right hand; but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Those who shall be eternally saved are the sheep, the others are the goats. It is not said Christ gave his life for the goats. Christ gave his life for the sheep. He did not lay down his life for the goats. Christ died for the sheep. his sheep shall be eternally saved. Therefore, all for whom Christ died shall be eternally saved. Those on the left hand are those who have always hated God, have never believed in Jesus Christ in the true sense of faith, have always stood in opposition to his blessed Gospel in their hearts, have always been enemies to God and not subject to his law, and not disposed to be, and going to death in that condition they are justly punished. It does them no injustice. His death for them would have been in vain. God would not require his Son to die for sinner, knowing his death could be of no advantage to them whatever. So you see those for whom Christ died believe in Christ as the Gospel is preached to them, but there were those who did not believe, and Jesus told the reason, and said, “Ye believe not because you are not of my sheep.” Had they been of his sheep, he would have given them the faith and they would have believed. He would have caused them to believe according to the power of God I say he has the power to reach those in unbelief, does reach them by his own blessed, conquering Spirit, and causes them to walk after him as the blessed Redeemer, the Shepherd of the sheep, who obey in their experience as they follow after the blessed Saviour. They love him. The others do not, who are damned justly, not because they refuse to accept Christ as the reason, but because they are sinners, as my brother and I are agreed. They are sent to an endless hell because they deserve to be.

I haven’t time for another argument. I have a number more here that I haven’t time to introduce, and so I want your attention, in conclusion, to the great contrast between the plan of salvation that saves a poor sinner dead in trespasses and in sins, and that plan which is a failure, which my friend advocates, unless the Spirit can get to the people through the preacher. And, although Christ has died for all the human family, God has tied himself up in such a way that the devil operates where God cannot go, and sinners are dragged down by millions to an endless hell whom Christ died for and whom God loved, while God cannot reach those in enlightened countries where the gospel is being preached until they first come to Christ by faith, and they cannot come, for coming would be bearing good fruit. So it suspends the plan of salvation upon conditions that sinners cannot comply with, even where the gospel is preached.

I argue, my friends, that heathen (and heathen are in countries enlightened under the public proclamation of the gospel as well as in “heathen” land) are not out of God’s reach. He saves sinners through Christ Jesus, our adorable Saviour. I love this grand doctrine, because I have experienced that, as I humbly trust, God’s blessed Spirit found me when I was wandering from God.

“Jesus sought me when a stranger,

Wandering from the fold of God;

He, to rescue me from danger,

Interposed his precious blood.”

Although I was a poor, helpless, hell-deserving sinner, the riches of his grace was such that his Spirit reached my heart. My course was changed from the love of sin unto the love of righteousness, and a desire to live to the glory of my Saviour’s most precious and adorable name.

(Time expired.)


ELD. THROGMORTON’S SEVENTH REPLY
In just one-half hour, the work on this proposition is closed. I have nothing now to do but refute my brother’s last speech, if there is time for it.

I must confess I was a little surprised at his closing statement. I thought he was going to recapitulate, but he turned ‘round and talked awhile on the next proposition, and then he said: “I was wandering from God!” He was wandering from God! Wasn’t you resisting the Spirit when you did that, Brother Daily? He has been teaching us that the Spirit’s work in bringing the sinner to Christ is irresistible, but he, himself, one of the sheep, one of the elect, was wandering from God and was “a helpless, hell- deserving sinner.” That is what he says he was, just a few years ago—in his lifetime. Yet he has been telling you that he didn’t owe God a thing; never did since he was born. Christ paid all his debt on the cross when he died there 1800 years ago. Brother Daily, you just overlooked that. But you couldn’t help it. It is the fault of your doctrine, the fault of your position.

“I didn’t know I was debating with a “Two-Seeder” before, but I have found it out. Who was it that laughed about the “Two-Seed” doctrine this morning? Of course you are not going to laugh now.

Brother Daily makes a distinction between men and women as they are, by nature, between the elect and the non-elect before God calls the elect. They—the elect—are all his sheep before they are quickened. When did they get to be sheep? I understand from your teaching in this last speech that you were always sheep. Then there is an eternal distinction between God’s children and the devil’s children; and that is the “Two-Seed” doctrine. Paul says, however, that there is no difference. The elect are “by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” Eph. 2:3.

He tells you it seems that I doubt that infants are saved. Oh, no. What I wanted was for you to tell me where you found authority for their salvation, and in answer you said you found it in the fact that you believe it. I told you I wanted better authority. Now he says the Scriptures point that way. If he had said that in answer to my question it would have been well. But he said his authority was in the fact that he believed they would be saved—or words to that effect. Well, John R. Daily is not the authority in this discussion, but in answering the question this last time, he goes to the Scriptures.

He goes again to his chart and finds God and Christ and the Holy Spirit and a great many people that don’t get to hear the gospel and wants to know why God didn’t arrange that all should hear, and says that therefore his proposition is sustained! All that belongs to the next question, and I want to say again that I am fully prepared on the next question. You have said so much about it while we have been discussing this one, that some of your remarks will be a little stale. You will have to repeat yourself a goad deal.

But he says he wants me to answer about Esau in this speech. I am glad of this, for I had overlooked it. I was intending to speak of it anyway, and by some means it slipped my mind. I have a great deal of material that I haven’t been able to use. I wish we had more time, but then, perhaps, that would make the book too lengthy. Here is the passage: Romans 9:10-13, “And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger.” That was before the children were born. But this other: “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated!” This wasn’t before the children were born. Listen to this: The fact that Esau was to serve Jacob does not prove that God hated Esau; God did not hate Esau until Esau sinned. We read in Malachi 1:3, “And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste, for the dragons of the wilderness.” That was after Esau’s descendents owned the land. Why should God hate an infant unborn or an infant in its mother’s arms? He does not!

Yet there are men whom Jesus bought that perish. Read the account of them in 2nd Peter 2:1, which I have quoted: “But there were false prophets also among the people, eve as there shall be false tea among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” Then going on to describe them further, the apostle said: “But these, as natural brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they under stand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption.” Men that Jesus bought! That one passage settled the proposition before us.

And did you notice that my brother, with all the time he had to spare, couldn’t give any attention to the Tabernacle? He has never referred to the Tabernacle. Yet all the time he has kept saying that Christ made the atonement on the cross. I showed it to you on the chart that the atonement was made in the Most Holy Place—in Heaven. I don’t blame you. You had no answer; so of course, you couldn’t make it. Thank you for the liberty as to Esau.

He asks, “Must a man believe that Christ died for him to make it a fact?” No, sir. I have never said that at all. Christ “tasted death for every man,” and to believe that Christ died for a man doesn’t make it so. But when I believed on him as having died for. me, then was my debt paid.

“How precious did that grace appear

The hour I first believed.”

Sing it again. Keep singing it. It is the truth.

Then he tells you I haven’t proved that Christ satisfied for the race, by his death on the cross, as to Adam’s guilt. I never said he satisfied on the cross. I am saying all the time that the atonement—the satisfaction—wasn’t made on the cross, but in Heaven. On the cross the victim was provided, and then the High Priest took the blood of the victim into the Most Holy Place and there made and makes the atonement; there makes satisfaction. No, I never said that Christ satisfied for the race when he lied, as to Adam’s guilt. He satisfied as to Adam’s guilt when he took the blood and went into the Most Holy Place. “And as by one offense judgment came upon all men to con’ even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men”—upon the same all men—“unto justification of life.” My brother has not been able to get away from this plain word of God. The same all that were condemned for Adam’s transgression attained to justification by Christ’s righteousness; and thus he took away the sin of the world.

Now, on that question of working belief in the sinner’s heart. Let me say this: If God works belief in the sinner’s heart, even as Brother Daily says, that does not change the fact that God cannot save a man in unbelief. If it be a fact that God in the most absolute sense, works faith in the sinner’s heart, isn’t that working of faith in order that he doesn’t save him in unbelief? That is my argument exactly. Let us notice just a little as to how my opponent has the Holy Spirit to work irresistibly. He has God working on the sinner like a woodsman has a yoke of oxen to work when hitched to a log. I don’t think that is it at all. We believe according to God’s mighty power which he wrought in Christ. We believe according to that, but that doesn’t say that God works faith in us in that way, Brother Daily says if God draws a sinner, the sinner comes. H says every one God draws comes. He didn’t try to prove it. He says that I say the sinner must come to Christ before God can save him. That is what you say, too, brother!

Of course, we differ a little about the coming. You have him coming like a log drawn by oxen. I have God to draw him by the gentle wooing of his Spirit. Whether he comes, as I teach it or you teach it, it is in order to salvation. But that is all on the next question. Brethren Moderators.

But he says Christ refuses to pray for all men and quotes from the 17th chapter of John. I think that deserves an answer, and I am going to turn to it. I have more on that very point. Now in that seventeenth chapter of John, ninth verse, Jesus says:

“I pray not for the world but for those whom thou hast given me.” “Those whom thou hast given me” means just the apostles in that verse, because Jesus goes on further in the same chapter and says: “Neither pray I for these alone but also for all them that shall be on me through their word.” Then verse twenty. These who are to believe are no part of “the given.” You can see that. It was a mistake to say that Jesus never prayed for the world. At the particular moment when he uttered the language in John 17:0, he did not pray for the world. Neither did he pray for those that were afterward to believe; but later on he did. At that particular moment when he uttered the language quoted (John 17:9) he didn’t pray for the world. He was praying for the Apostles alone there. He was not even praying for all believers. He prayed for all believers and for the world further on. “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word: that they all may be one.” Why does he want them to be one? “That the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” See verse 21. Prayed for them and for the world. The benefit of these as for the world, that the world might be led to believe. So much for that.

He says when offerings were made by the priests sins were forgiven. But where was atonement made? When was the covering provided and put on? Where was it? Echo answers “Where? O where?” so far as Brother Daily is concerned. After looking with open eyes and open mouth at that Tabernacle Chart and argument, he has been dumb as an oyster as far as answering it is concerned. Won’t the book look fine without an attempted answer to that? That is going to appear in the book. Won’t it look fine with all this argument, and you, Brother, as silent as if you were dead concerning it, when I have rubbed it in on you, as much s I have? That wasn’t just the right way to say that for it to go in the book. It is not a very classical expression, but, however, let it go.

He says that the brother in 1st Cor. 8:11 didn’t perish eternally. We just have his word for that. He didn’t try to prove it. He says he might lose the enjoyment of a saint and perish that way. He said it didn’t mean to perish everlastingly; yet I showed you that the Greek word apollumi is the same word that is used for perish as in John 3:16, Matt. 10:28, and Rom. 2:12; the very same word. You can answer any argument you want to with mere assertion. But what is it worth?

I want you to look at that chart: I am going to have that chart in the book.

 

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 I Tim. 4:10.

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

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

He answers this question: “Can a sinner in the call resist like a Christian?” And says: “No.” He says the sinner is dead and that is the reason. And he says I make out the God-head trying and failing. Was the God-head trying when you were wandering in sin, Brother Daily, and when you didn’t come? Of course, finally you came, but for a good while you were resisting. The fact is, while the sinner is dead, he is not dead like a block of wood or block of marble. I have an argument on that which John R. Daily, with all his ability, will never answer, consistently with his position here. But this belongs to our next question.

He says as to the passage in 2nd Core 5:14-15, “If Christ died for all, then all were dead.” That it means they all died hi Christ. Now I don’t think that is the idea in that scripture. He wouldn’t have suffered for all if all hadn’t been dead, is the way I take it. Of course you can choose between his interpretation and mine. It is purely a matter of interpretation. He makes an argument on his interpretation, but can not establish his interpretation.

Then in reference to the sheep. He says they were sheep in covenant relation. Why did you not say that before? That would have sounded a little better than your Two-Seed theology of sheep from all eternity Answer me, Did they get to be sheep before the effectual call?

Mr. Daily: That is it. Prospectively.

How are you going to have a man that dues not exist in a covenant relation? The idea of having men making a contract before they are born! Of course, if you have God looking forward and seeing them as his people that is more like it.

Mr. Daily: That is it. Prospectively.

But they were sheep as you have it, before they had eternal life! That looks, like a very peculiar statement to me, and I must quote this language from Paul at this point: “You have he quickened who were dead in trespasses and in. sins, wherein in time past you walked”—they were not so dead but what they could walk—“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 de sires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” Not sheep. Not eternally God’s children, but by nature the children of wrath, even as others—just like others. No difference between them. Brother Daily has a difference before they were quickened. But he explains that. It was just in covenant sense he says. They were not actually sheep, but God, looking ahead, saw they were going to be.

Now, I guess I have a little time to recapitulate. But, I have something here. Some of the things I wanted to say, as a part of the recapitulation. See this chart. (Points to chart as already given.) That is John R. Daily over there. Here is the Bible over here. You see what he says. He sticks to it to the last. He is like the woman who said “Scissors.”

Jesus is the Saviour of all men: he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He died for some that will not be eternally saved. They will go into everlasting punishment. I think Brother Daily’s statement on that chart and those Bible statements are a sufficient presentation of this whole question. If these words mean what on their face they signify, that proposition is false; and so, as I said in the beginning, he has failed, failed, failed, just because he didn’t have the proof.

He has been complaining because I have been examining the proofs; said I ought to examine the arguments! If I take up a man’s proof and show that it doesn’t contain the term to be proven nor its equivalent, he fails. And Brother Daily has failed to prove this proposition. Christ did die for some who will not be eternally saved.

I have shown you that Christ’s death is for all and that some will be lost You can see that here the chart. I have shown you the statement in John 6:51, where Jesus, speaking concerning his flesh, says: “My flesh which I will give for the life of the world.” But my brother says he gave it just for the life of the elect: just for the life of some of the world.

Jesus says, in John 12th chapter, I cannot just call the verse to mind now, but you have it. It will be found back in the book somewhere, “If any man believe not I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world.” This shows that the world takes in the man who believes not, for there are the words: “If a man believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.” He came that the world, the believers, might be saved: might come to be believers and he saved. But according to my friend some of them are beyond the possible reach of salvation because Christ never died for them. Brother Daily says Christ didn’t die for all; and in his debate with Mr. Hughes, says: “The scriptures teach that there will be a resurrection in a spiritual state of the natural bodies of all the dead, of the Adamic race, a part of whom will suffer endless punishment.” Of course Christ didn’t die for these last, according to his theory.

I am quoting you passages concerning the world. 1st John 2:2 is one which he quoted as a proof that the world means the elect. I will tell you, if I were asked for proof and couldn’t give a better one, after I had thought over it, I would be ashamed. How does that passage read “He (Christ) the propitiation for our sins”—for the elect’s sins is what my brother claims— not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” That whole world is somebody outside of the elect, I showed you how that was.

I showed you that Jesus actually made atonement for the Adamic sin when he entered in the Most Holy Place which Brother Daily was afraid to look into.

I showed you how that Christ is a propitiation— God set him forth to be a propitiation, a mercy seat, through faith. What for? “That he might be just and the justified of him that believeth in Jesus.” No matter how he is brought to believe. It doesn’t matter about election, so far as this question is concerned. We have the fact that he is set forth to be a propitiation through faith.

In 1st John, 4:14, we see he was to be the Saviour of his people, but he is also the Saviour of the world.

I showed you about the Jewish Nation—how Jesus died for it—and my friend has touched that question mighty gingerly. I desire to bring it in right here close to the last, and emphasize it: Christ died for the Jewish Nation. This was foretold by the High Priest when he said in John 11:49-50, “And that the whole Nation perish not.” You see it is not a few, but “the whole Nation.” “And this spake the High Priest” not for himself, but being High Priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that Nation; and not for that Nation only, but that he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. My opponent says God had some children scattered abroad; but what has that got to do with the point? The point is, Jesus died for the Jewish Nation. Suppose, then, I show you some lost Jew. Judas was a Jew. “Good were it for that man if he had never been born.” The rich man in hell was a Jew. He called Abraham father, and wanted him to send some one back from the spirit land to warn his brothers. Abraham said: “They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.” And this rich man was in hell and in torment, and there was such a gulf between him and the place of the righteous that it could not be crossed by bridge nor by boat nor by angel’s wing. His doom was fixed, fixed! And yet he was one of a Nation for whom Jesus Christ died, and he died for the whole Nation. Can my friend’s proposition then be true? Never!

(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.