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


Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen

I am glad to see the continued and increasing interest in this discussion in which is manifested by the presence of so many of you when so many of you are uncomfortably situated on account of the heat.

I shall spend my time during this half hour in noticing the very remarkable speech made by my worthy friend. It was remarkable chiefly because of its great distance from the issue before us. Of course, you may not put that estimate on it. I am just giving my estimate.

He began by telling you what I would not affirm, and seems to be dissatisfied with this proposition. I beg leave, however, to say that this is the proposition under discussion, and his discussion of what he thought the proposition ought to be, was entirely out of place. I don’t mean his telling about that but his discussion of that.

He began by telling you that I would not affirm that preaching was a necessary means in the regeneration of sinners; that I said no Missionary Baptist, no accredited Missionary Baptist, so taught. There is a little unintentional misrepresentation in that statement! Notice the proposition. Notice the wording of the proposition that he asked me to affirm or wanted me to affirm: “The Scriptures teach that God employs the preaching of the Gospel as a necessary means in the regeneration of sinners. That is, he wanted me to affirm that it was necessary on God’s part. For me to have done that would have been to say that God was so tied that he could not regenerate a man without the preaching of the Gospel. This would have been to limit the power of God. I could not and do not take such a position. I explained that in my opening speech.

Then he proceeds to quote some of our authors. Of course I could not take the full statement quoted, but I tried to note them the best I could; that is those that have anything to do with the proposition. However, many of them have nothing to do with the issue, nor does my duty as to the proposition require me to notice them. Yet I want my brother to have rope, because he has got to have something with which to take up his time. He cannot meet my proposition. He cannot meet my arguments on my proposition. He can never weaken for a moment, a phalanx of scriptures that I have brought forward in support of my proposition. So he must fail.

He quoted Selvidge to show something about my proposition and to show up a statement which I made about another proposition. Not at all in point. Yet I want to humor you, Brother Daily, and be good to you. Well, he quotes Selvidge of fifty years ago, and had to go back to Georgia to a debate Brother Selvidge had with Elder Thompson. In that discussion Brother Selvidge, he tells us, said that God “had adopted the word as the means.” This is all right: That “this is the age of means.” That is all right. That the world is to be evangelized by means.” That is all right. I don’t think Brother Selvidge was undertaking to tie God to this means be cause he would not have desired to limit the power of God. You see my brother is wanting to argue another proposition.

He also quotes Brother Penick as saying that there was no evidence that there are any regenerated with out the preaching of the gospel. If you know of any will you please tell us, Brother Daily? If you know of a single man regenerated in this age without the gospel, tell this audience about it. Brother Penick said he saw no evidence. That is not saying God couldn’t do it. Not at all. Nor that with God it was a necessary means.

What he quotes from me in the Potter-Throgmorton debate is to the same effect. I am abundantly satisfied with that debate. That discussion was held in July, 1887, and if I was to begin to try to count the “Old School” Baptist brethren who have come to us since then—and many of them who say that they came in consequence of the reading of that book—I wouldn’t be able to name them all. I am mighty well satisfied with that debate, and I am expecting fruit like that from this one. Yes, sir; lots of it.

I wouldn’t wonder if Brother Daily were to come to us yet. Don’t you know what Brother Todd did in 1896 at Eldorado? He debated with Brother Edmunds as one of you, now he is with us. He has the pastor ate of the Missionary Baptist church at Greenville. Where is A. M. Kirkland? He was once with you. Now he is pastor of the Missionary Baptist church at Eldorado. Where is H. E Pettus? He was one of your bright young men. Yew he is pastor of the Missionary Baptist church at Westfield. Others have come; are here on this platform. Why should I mention more? Time would fail me. Come along. Brother Daily. You are a fine man and I would be glad to have you.

But remember, in any case, my brother in quoting these men is begging the question. If Brother Daily is not pleased with the question as we have it, why did he accept it? Was you so anxious for a debate with me Brother Daily that you agreed to deny a proposition that you believe? I think not. Then discuss this proposition and don’t try to change it to something else. That is the thing for you to do. You made a mighty speech on another and different proposition but not on this proposition.

Yes! He quoted Brother Todd, by the way, after he got through with Selvidge and Throgmorton and Penick. What was Harry Todd when you quoted him? One of your own witnesses. Where is he now? With us. How did he happen to come? He got his eyes open. Brother Daily says Todd first went to them from us. He said yesterday that Brother Todd went to them from us after he was of age. If think this is a mistake, but anyway he went to them in his youth. When he reached mature years he came back home.

Brother Daily says I made an argument on the parable of the sower. It wasn’t exactly an argument that I made there; at least it wasn’t one of my stated arguments; it was a part of the preliminary definitions that I was laying down. I am very glad he ventured to try an answer to what I said on that parable, and here is the main thing I want you to notice. He agrees with me that the seed is the word, the preached word, but he says it is not the life. Who said it was the life? He went right on and argued as if I had said that the seed was the life! I didn’t say it. I say in my proposition that God communicates life through the seed.

Brother Daily is trying to put still another proposition in my mouth. What you want to debate? Why don’t you debate the Proposition we have? He then proceeds to say I cannot give life by preaching! And then says that is my argument! He looks you people in the face and says that!

I didn’t say I could give life by preaching. I didn’t say Brother Daily could. I said God gives life through preaching as a means. Now, Brother, come up to the trough, if you will allow that expression, and “lick salt right.” It is not the preacher that gives the life. It is God. And he gives it by means of preaching and thus regeneration. The giving of life is regeneration.

Well he says that I told you it is not a question of God’s power! He said yesterday that it was a question of God’s power. But he had another question yesterday. Do you want to go back and argue that question? Are you not satisfied? This is not a question of power. It is a question of how an all-powerful God does a thing. That is the thing. Not a question of power, but a question of method.

Now those questions. He was very kind to answer. He just came right up. Let’s see:

“Do you accept the statement in the Confession of 1644 that faith is ordinarily begot by the preaching of the word?” He reads from the London confession, Fourteenth Chapter, and says he accepts that. That wasn’t what I asked you. I asked about the Confession of 1641 that by the Seven Churches.

Then he tries to tell us there is a distinction between that out of which faith comes and the fruits of it. Certainly, there is. We will pass that until later.

“Do you accept the statement in the Somerset Confession that the Spirit, is administered by or through the word of faith preached?” “No,” he says. He says he will stand against what is not taught in the word of God, no matter where it is. That is right. I do not say that these Confessions ought to be blindly followed. Here is what I quoted them for: To show you that John R. Daily is at variance with those old Confessions, and that he doesn’t teach what they taught. If you want to go back on them, all right; but I am sorry to see you going the wrong way.

Now the next: “Do you accept the statement in Chapter 10 of the London Confession that it pleased God effectually to call (the elect) by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation?” “Yes, sir,” he says, “as explained by the next paragraph.” The next paragraph doesn’t explain it at all. It goes on and ex plains something else. He ought not to say that. The next one neither contradicts nor explains the paragraph under discussion. Here is what this says:

“That it pleases God effectually to call the elect by his word and spirit out of that state of sin and death.” It is not after they are out of it! “Out of that state of sin and death to grace and salvation.” Yes, Brother Daily accepts that as explained by the next paragraph! He dares me to accept the second section. Suppose I don’t. I am not tied up by the London Confession. It contains much mighty good doctrine; but you folks make your boast of the London Confession. Just a few years ago you published an edition of it, which is the one I have here.

Now, Brother John R. Daily, the one upon whom the mantle fell, when that great man Lemuel Potter died—he comes up and takes issue with that old London Confession in plain words. That is the thing to do if he thinks it is wrong. But he ought not to try to cover it up. That is not saying he does of course.

“Do you agree with Chapter 14 of the London Confession “that faith is ordinarily wrought in the hearts of the elect by the ministry of the Word.” “No objection whatever,” says Brother Daily, “faith is wrought that way.” Well give me your hand on that. Certainly! (They shake hands). Faith, John R. Daily says, is wrought in the hearts of the elect ordinarily by the ministry of the word! Is anybody regenerated without faith? No, sir. What does Paul say? “Ye are all the children of God (regenerated) by faith.” Not without faith. Not before it. So, if faith is wrought ordinarily in the hearts of the elect by the ministry of the Word, that faith thus wrought is that through which God regenerates and so the elect are regenerated by the ministry of the word. That is, God regenerates them through the ministry of the word. So much for those questions. I have some more for you after awhile. This debate is going to he quite a “query box” affair.

Now, as to Dr. John Gill. Those of you who are at all informed know how the “Old School Baptists regard Dr. John Gill. Brother Daily says Gill’s Commentary is only worth what it is worth for what truth is in it. That is right. I show, however, that my opponent is out of line with Gill’s Commentary and I show that the old Baptists away back endorsed that Commentary. Of course we might not to follow any body who is out of line with truth. I would rather be right than to be a Baptist—if there is any difference between them. Sure.

But my friend tries to show that Dr. Gill, contradicts himself not in the Commentary, but in a later work, “The Body of Divinity.” In this later work Dr. Gill has it that the sinner is passive in regeneration. That is right. . Yes, sir, the sinner is passive in re generation—as passive as the patient on the operating table when the surgeon uses the knife! This faith! Placing oneself passive into the hands of God. Then God regenerates! But he doesn’t go to a fellow and thy hands, wretched helpless and undone; perfectly passive. I am saved thou must save me!’ Then God regenerates! But he doesn’t go to a fellow and regenerate him in a saloon when he is not thinking of God and salvation; he is not passive then; he is in opposition. I tell you this doctrine that Brother Daily preaches destroys human responsibility.

I intend to read something further from the Old London Confession before this is through, on that point.

He says that Dr. Gill wrote that “Body of Divinity” in his old age. Maybe he had gotten into his dotage That great Commentary is what makes John Gill a giant among the Baptists of that age and that giant in that great Commentary: written in the prime of his manhood, and not when in his dotage agrees with my Proposition, Brother Daily; but when he came to write a doctrinal book, as I understand in his old age, so to speak. He said some things somewhat at variance possibly with his Commentary. Brother Daily said when a witness contradicts himself that forces him out of Court. You ought not to quote Brother Todd then. You know Brother Todd had come over to us and contradicted himself. What did you bring him up for? It seems that my friend will say almost anything in order to make it appear that my arguments are not what they ought to be; and then he finds fault with me for quoting such a man as Dr. John Gill.

He comes to John 20:30-31. He says we are not discussing whether men can believe when truth is preached. But he says they cannot. He says God doesn’t help anybody but the elect; so that others cannot believe. That has nothing to do with this question. I wish I could get Brother Daily to see the real issue in this debate and come up and face it. He affirms that life is before faith, just as the peach tree is before the peaches. We all know that it doesn’t follow that the life that Christ gives is before faith in him for he says in that same passage—my brother doesn’t examine it, but just says that life is before faith because a dead sinner cannot believe because he is dead like a dead horse! but God says, “These are written that ye might believe. Of course that is all right. “And that believing ye might have  life through his name.” What kind of life? The life that is in Christ. What kind? In him we have eternal life. Why don’t you teach that, brother?

But my opponent says this was written that Christians might believe. The idea that a man that is a Christian does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God! Why every Christian believes that Jesus is the Son of God. He cannot be a Christian without believing that. He that believeth not is condemned, the wrath of God is upon him and he shall die in his sins.” “Ye believe not because you are not of my sheep,” said Jesus. The sheep believe in him. The mark of the sheep is that they believe on him. Here is a man who says, “I am a sheep; but says: Oh, no; I don’t believe on Jesus. You believe not because you are not a sheep. See John 10:26. My phalanx of Scripture proofs has never been touched.

He says salvation doesn’t always involve regeneration. I grant sometimes the word is used when it does not; but there are plenty, of passages where it does, for instance, I Cor. 1:21, according to Dr. Gill, who Brother Daily says is not a good witness. The gospel is God’s power to save believers, and by the preaching of it God makes believers. Brother Daily says that just as I do. Yes, God through preaching works faith. Get through preaching works faith and immediately the believer is saved. “He that believeth hath everlasting life.” God saves men as I quoted, by the foolishness of preaching. He saves them from what they were before they believed; before they believed God’s wrath is upon them. See John 3:36. A man cannot he saved with Gods wrath on him.

Brother Daily says the purification in Acts 15:9 was purification from error! That those Gentiles were already God’s children! They were not believers. Can a man be God’s child and yet not be a believer? “He that believeth not is condemned already.” Brother Daily would by the vision of unclean beast that Cornelius and his company were already God’s children. That is rather far fetched. They were not believers; they were not pure. They had to he made believers; they had to be purified.

How do men become children of God .1 want to tell you it is by faith. To the Galatian Christians Paul said: “Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Gal. 3:26. My friend has those Gentiles the children of God without faith and. before faith. Don’t you know that won’t do? I have a parallel on one of the charts which I will show you. These Gentiles were not of God’s children; that had not faith. It was by Peter’s mouth that God made them believers. Brother Daily says the terms believer and unbeliever refer only to certain classes who have heard the testimony and has no reference to regeneration! In this he is away off. A believer is one that has heard the gospel and been led by God to accept it. What about an unbeliever? Where is he? just tell me. Jesus tells where he is in the plainest terms, “He that believeth not is condemned.”’

Here is another admission Brother Daily makes. Coming to Rom. 10:1 7 he agrees that faith does come by hearing. And we have shaken hands in that. It is settled in this debate, that the faith which is the gift of God comes by the preaching of the gospel. Remember we have shaken hands on that: John R. Daily and I have. This settles the question about regeneration. Regeneration is by faith and we are agreed as to how faith is produced. God works it by the preaching of the word. Are you “Old School” Baptists going to follow my opponent on this? Yes, follow him on this, for in this he is right. But this is not the way his people generally preach it. He says however, that they get faith by hearing. And Paul says, Gal. 3:26, “Ye are all children by faith;” not before it.

(Time expired).


Gentlemen Moderators, My Worthy Opponent, Ladies and Gentlemen.

If you can just succeed in keeping cool, I promise you that Brother Throgmorton and I will do our best along that line. (It was an exceeding warm day).

He accuses me of getting a great distance from the issue in my speech which I made in reply to his; that is the proposition that we have agreed to discuss. Now part of the time, I was a great distance from that proposition, but I was following Brother Throgmorton, and if he runs a hundred miles from the proposition, I will follow him. So if he wants me to stick to the proposition, let him stick to it. He is in the affirmative now. I am going after him this day and tomorrow. He has agree to affirm that the Scriptures teach that God employs the preaching of the gospel in the regeneration of sinners, but in his very first speech he tried to prove by Dr. Gill that that was the truth. So I went after him, and left the proposition far enough to turn Gill against him in what is recorded in the Memoirs in the “Body of Divinity” as he crowning work of Gill’s life. He went into the London Confession of Faith. I went into that to follow him, and called him to state if he really believes the statement in the 2d Sec. of the 10th Chapter, and he didn’t say in his last speech whether he did or not.
Yes, I got some distance from the proposition that the Scriptures teach the doctrine he is advocating. He claims that I have misrepresented him. Of course he meant you to understand that I had unintentionally misrepresented him; at least, I hope that was his aim.

(Mr. Throgmorton: I said that Brother Daily).

If I do misrepresent Brother Throgmorton it is not my intention.

In regard to the preaching of the Gospel being necessary or not necessary. I said in the beginning of my speech you remember that that was an important matter in the discussion of this Question. If he says no that the preaching of the Gospel is not really necessary, why of course I will leave that matter out and say no more about it. If he will get up in his next speech and say to us that the preaching of the Gospel is not necessary, that God, without preachers, can get clown here in the heathen lands and save them everlastingly from sin and that preaching is not necessary, then I will just leave that out. He said it was not a matter as to whether God could or could not, but he has said that God cannot save sinners any more than God can lie without the sinner first believing and coming to Christ for that salvation. Now if he is willing to take that back, we will accept his acknowledgment of error and welcome him as being that much closer to us than what he was.

He said that I had referred to a statement made by him long ago about another proposition. It doesn’t matter if it was about another proposition. The statement that he made was: “Understand, Brother Potter, God cannot give the increase where the seed is not planted.” That is what he said. If that was the truth then it is the truth now If it wasn’t true then, if he thinks it wasn’t the truth then, let him take it back and we will welcome him as nearer to us.

He said Selvidge did not aim to limit God. How can we tell what a man means except by what he says? Selvidge said: By human language alone sinners are reached and made to experience the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.

He said if I know any who were regenerated with out the gospel tell him. Cornelius was one. Cornelius was said to be a devout man, which is from (eusebes) which means Godly, pious. Cornelius was a Godly man as eusebes signifies. If he was a godly man, he was regenerated. There is one regenerated without the gospel. He was a Godly man before Peter got to him. I know another. That was Saul of Tarsus. I know what plea he will make on that, and I will let him make it first, then I will answer him. I know of a great class that are regenerated without the gospel. Little infants that die in infancy. There are idiots that are regenerated without the gospel. There are deaf and dumb that never hear preaching in all their lives; they are regenerated without the preaching of the gospel. There are insane, there are heathen regenerated without the preaching of the gospel.
In his last speech he didn’t get through answering me, and so I will now lead, although he is in the affirmative. I don’t think he will get through answering me at 4 o’clock tomorrow evening I don’t expect him to.

Where is Kirkland, where is Brother Willis and some others? Gone off into heresy. They went into heresy before they left us, and we were glad they left us after they went into heresy and if there are any others among the Primitive Baptists preaching the Missionary Doctrine we want them to leave us and go to the Missionary Baptists. I am willing to measure arms with him. I wouldn’t be afraid to say I have baptized more missionaries than he ever baptized into the Missionary Baptists from us. I tell you, I have no idea how many I have baptized and if I can get these missionaries here to believe the truth before this debate ends and to come to us. I am ready to baptize them. And if I Bother Throgmorton will come to us, I can baptize him as big as he is.

He said I quoted Harry Todd. I quoted what he said about your article of faith, which says the operation of the Spirit is co-extensive with the proclamation of the gospel.

In regard to the parable of the sower, the seed and the word, he said he didn’t say the seed was eternal life. He said it was the incorruptible seed. That is what he said in his debate with Elder Potter. God giveth the increase, he said, but not where the seed is not. If incorruptible seed is not eternal life tell us what it is! Is it life that will go out directly? Is it life that will die after awhile? Is it a life like our mortal life, that will waste away? If it is not eternal and everlasting life, tell us what it is! You say it is the word of God. You say it is the incorruptible seed. I don’t object to you saying it is the word of God, but I do object to you saying it is incorruptible seed. You prove it is the incorruptible seed and tell us what it is. If it is not something eternal tell us what it is. If fowls pick up incorruptible seed and swallow it, do they not pick up that which is incorruptible? Will it not be the in corruptible seed inside of them? And if they won’t go to heaven, Why not?

You said yesterday it was a question of power. Did you not say God could not though he would? Answer.

He said I made a distinction between what is produced and the thing that produces it. Do you say there is not a difference? What is it produces faith in the heart? It is the Spirit. Can faith be there before the Spirit is there to produce it?

He says the second paragraph of Chapter Ten of the London Confession of Faith refers to something else besides what is in the first section. The first and second are connected, and regeneration is embraced in both, and the second fully the position of those that framed the London Confession of Faith. Relative to the London Confession of Faith, he said he is not tied up to the Confession? I am not either. So there we are even.

In regard to the children of God being the children of God by faith, he quotes from Gal. 3:26, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” So the children of God are said to be his children by obedience, but it is not their obedience that makes them his children. First Cor.:17, “Wherefore come out from, among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and. I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” How are they to be sons and daughters? By obedience. God’s children are his children by obedience. It is not their faith that makes them his children but faith proves them to be his children. So faith is proof of the fact.

He says I am out of line with Gill’s Commentary. He is out of line with Gill’s Body of Divinity.

In answer to his question. I quoted Todd and the article of Faith: That the operation of the Spirit is coextensive with the proclamation of the gospel. Can not go where the gospel does not go. Not at all. And it can only reach a very few where the gospel is proclaimed. So that the preaching of the gospel is necessary in the regeneration of sinners.
Life is before faith. He says it is not; that it is not like peach trees before peaches.

He asks if it is not unreasonable to say that a child of God is brought to believe. I want to read you First John 5:13, “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” That is writ ten to persons who believe, not that they might have eternal life, but that they might know they have eternal life, and that they might believe on the Son of God; written to children who had eternal life, that they might know. Every time you hear a good sermon it starts up anew your faith, and you go out from the  house of God having your faith revived just as the grass that seems to be dead is alive and is revived by the soft summer shower. Living children of God receive a new life of joy and peace whenever they are refreshed by the gospel and enabled to believe confidingly in the blessed Son of God. Often they feel cold and barren and lifeless. Like the withered grass they seem to have no life. Then as the refreshing showers of sweet gospel truth drop into their hearts they are revived, being enabled again to realize that Jesus is their Saviour and again to rest in his glorious promises. Many regenerated persons have not known what their experience meant, have not understood the things they have felt, till they have heard the pure gospel. As the gospel presents the evidences of a change of heart and holds up the glorious Saviour of sinners, they believe in him because they have eternal life in their hearts enabling them to believe. They are revived by the warmth of the sunlight of divine truth, and live in a sweet happiness that no unregenerated one can ever know. And so the passage in John 20:30-31 is explained by John in I John 5:13. He admits that salvation does not always involve regeneration, and then says, “Mr. Daily says that the gospel saves believers.” It does because the Bible says so.

Having noticed all that is relevant of my brother’s speech, I now continue my negative arguments against his proposition.
When I took my seat at the close of my last speech I was on the argument that regeneration is represented as a resurrection from death, and as that resurrection i without means so regeneration is without means., ‘I was quoting a passage from the language of John which says, “He that hath the Son of God hath life, and he that hath not the Son o God hath not life.” Continuing still, the Lord says: “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and come forth.” A life-giving power must be self-existent, uncreated and divine. The same invincible power that caused the beasts of the earth and the fowls of the air to become docile and move into Noah’s ark must cause the lion and the lamb to lie down together. That same power that stopped the lions mouths and warded off the unwonted heat of the fiery furnace; that woke a dead Lazarus and healed all manner if diseases, that rebuked the elements at his pleasure and caused the very devils to tremble: that invincible power which did all these things, and many more wonderful things without any instrument or means, that same almighty power must regenerate the soul.

The voice of the preacher will never he heard by the dead in sins, in a spiritual sense. The voice of Jesus by the Divine Spirit must give life before such can hear the preaching of the gospel. Even the voice of Jesus himself, in preaching his gospel, was not heard by those who were dead. Jesus said to this class, “Why do ye not understand my speech; even because ye cannot hear my words. 8:43. It was necessary that he speak to them in regeneration in order that they might he able to hear his voice in preaching. Why? It is not in the regeneration of sinners that the gospel is employed as a means. I argue from all these unanswerable facts that God does not employ the preaching of the gospel as a means in the regeneration of sinners.
I come now to the Third Negative Argument: My Third Negative Argument is that regeneration is represented in the scriptures as a creation, and creation is the direct work of the Creator without the use of any medium agent. I Cor. 5:17, “If any man be in Christ he is a new creature. Gal. 6:15, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumscisim availeth anything, not uncircuumcision, but a new creature.” It takes a new creation to constitute one a new creature. But not only is it implied in these passages that regeneration is a creation, but it is expressly stated in Eph. 2:10, “We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” Bara in the Heb. ktisis in the Greek, and create or creation in the English are the strongest terms that could be selected to express the idea of the sovereign work of God done independent of any medium whatever. We must take these words in their undiminished meaning, as they are used in the inspired writers without any qualification. We are, then, obliged to understand by this language a special divine operation distinct and apart from the preaching of the gospel. No creature assisted in his own creation or the creation of another. Regeneration is a creation. God does not employ anything as means in creation. Therefore God does not employ the preaching of the Gospel as a means in the regeneration of sinners.

Argument Four My fourth argument against this proposition is based upon the relation of two kinds of light to two kinds of darkness; the relation of the light of instruction to the darkness of ignorance, and the relation of the light of life to the darkness of death. The light of instruction is the opposite of the darkness of ignorance, and the light of life is the opposite of the darkness of death. There is great difference between the light of life, which is life itself, and the light of instruction, and a correspondingly great difference bet the darkness of death, which is death itself, and the darkness of ignorance. The light of instruction will never deliver from the darkness of death. The light of life only will do that.
John says of Jesus, “In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”—John 1:4. Again John 5:26, “As the Father hath life in him so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” I john 5:11—12, “this is the record that God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.”

The giving of this life to the sinner in the darkness of death delivers from the darkness of that death. “I give unto them eternal life.” So Jesus says of his sheep. (John 10:28). And in his prayer he declares, “As thou hast given him power over all flesh that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.” (John 17:2). Nothing but the light r life will ever make the dead live. The light of instruction will deliver from the darkness of ignorance, but it will never penetrate where the light of life is not. Paul was sent to turn the Gentiles from the darkness of ignorance to the light of instruction, and not from the darkness of death to light of life. This is very evident, because he declares that the natural man, or the unregenerated man, “receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Cor. 2:14 The preaching of the gospel is presenting the things of the Spirit by the light of instruction Since none can receive such things without, being made spiritual by the light of life, it follows that the preaching of the gospel is not employed as a means in the regeneration of sinners.
Argument Five: My fifth argument is based upon the teaching of the parable of the sower, as recorded in Matt. 13, Mark 4 and Luke 8. In that parable Christ represents the “honest and good heart” as “good ground into which the seed fell and brought forth fruit.” I see I will not have time to finish this argument, so I want to call attention to the position my friend occupies: that the ground represents the hearts of sinners; that the preacher is represented by the one sowing the seed, and that there can be no children of God except the preacher so that seed. That in territory where the seed has never been sown there can not be found children of God. People living in such a country until they come to death, go down to endless hell because the seed has never been sown in their territory, because they have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel preached. The incorruptible seed has never been sown in their hearts. They are not children of God, and therefore when they come down to death they are punished forever. On this map we have a representation of the part of the earth where the gospel has never been preached. We have a representation here where the gospel has been preached. We have a representation here where the gospel has been preached. Only a small portion of those who have an opportunity to hear the gospel are regenerated, a large majority are not and all that live in the territory where the gospel has never been proclaimed had no opportunity, and therefore they are not regenerated.
(Time Expired.)


Explanation of Chart --The Circle represents the world of mankind; the upper part of, the Circle represents the portion to whom the gospel is preached; the dark part, those who are saved; and the white part, those who are lost.


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


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