Featured Spurgeons Quote on Baptist

As I said, the verse has to be interpreted, but it is one verse that says Christ died for every person. When making your statement perhaps it will be better to say that there is not one verse that says Christ died for every person without exception.

 

No in context that is not what it says. So no, it is not a verse that says Christ died for every person.

 

Of course it says it -- Christ died for every man/person. Afterward, you have to determine whether it means every man/person without exception or man without distinction (i.e., every "kind" of man, red, yellow, black, white, rich, poor, Jew, Gentile, male, female, and so on). You or Sproul say as much (whether the whole quote in post #20 is his; "every man" and "many sons" are equivalent, imo). To me it seems disingenuous, though, to challenge folks to find a verse that says Christ died for every man when you apparently mean to challenge them to find a verse that says Christ died for every man with exception.

 

No, it seems dishonest to ignore context to try and make a verse mean/say every man.

 

I can see you don't understand my point. I'll take the blame for that and discontinue with this exchange, since it leads further and further from the original post.

 

No I understand your point of semantics.

 

David;
Here you challenge me and it takes a reformed believer to prove you wrong LOL
MB

 

I understand this to be the case, ". . . he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for . . . the whole world. . . ." -- 1 John 2:2. ". . . the whole world lieth in wickedness. . . ." -- 1 John 5:19.

 

It would be ignorant to argue over something so obvious. You've already lost the argument.
MB

 

There is a third view that Christ did die for every person without exception to be either their Savior or their Judge (Romans 8:34; Romans 14:9).

 

Strongs words from Charles Spurgeon on this:

on Tim. 2:4

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth."Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —"Salvation By Knowing the Truth"

 

The dicey part is going from what the NT actually means to what we (a local baptist church) understand it to mean. To claim "Apostolic authority" for views that differ from others also claiming "Apostolic authority" seems childish, IMHO.

 

Either an interpretation is true or it is false. There is what the word of God explicitly says. And any disagreement is on what it does not explicitly say, the difference in interpretation. Otherwise the denial of the explicit reading of the word of God is in error or the translation might not be the best in that case.

 

When two well studied views differ, for one group to assert apostolic authority is far fetched. It is like saying my daddy is better than your daddy. It reflects pride, not humility IMHO.

 

I would not claim that the Baptist Church proper existed in Acts, but would agree that the doctrines and practices would have been Baptist!

 

There was never one Baptist Church as such. There has always been Baptist churches called solely by the name of their respective location. They originally did not go by the title "Baptist," that is post reformation label.

 

Can anyone name any person whose sins Jesus did NOT die for? Can anyone name a person who was born with no chance for salvation ?

 

Sure. Every single person in hell on the first question. The second question is a separate issue.

 

The actual succession is the Christian New Testament documents handed down to us to this day. So when I say Baptist, I mean the Christian New Testament churches today. And there has always been the New Testament churches. [Baptist]