Spurgeons Quote on Baptist

[rlvaughn]

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

 

[rlvaughn]

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

 

[rlvaughn]

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

 

[MB]

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

 

[37818]

I think I will take a shot. The bearing of proof being on you.

Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world

Behold the Lamb of the God, the one taking away, the sin (singular) of the world (singular).

Are, "our sins," inclusive in, "the sin," of the world?

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.

 

[MB]

If Christ died for the sins of every man, then why are not all saved? What did God waste Christ's sacrifice? Was Christ's sacrifice not good enough?

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

 

[37818]

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.

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).

 

[Jerome]

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"

 

[Van]

Not on that matter. The Christian New Testament remains the Apostolic authority despite the error.

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.

 

[37818]

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.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

What do you think about this quote by Spurgeon on Baptist history?

c. h. spurgeon on baptist perpetuity

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor I believe any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with the government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men". (From The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol.VII, Page 225).

"History has hitherto been written by our enemies, who never would have kept a single fact about us upon the record if they could have helped it, and yet it leaks out every now and then that certain poor people called Anabaptists were brought up for condemnation. From the days of Henry II to those of Elizabeth we hear of certain unhappy heretics who were hated of all men for the truth's sake which was in them. We read of poor men and women, with their garments cut short, turned out into the fields to perish in the cold, and anon of others who were burnt at Newington for the crime of Anabaptism. Long before your Protestants were known of, these horrible Anabaptists, as they were unjustly called, were protesting for the 'one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.' No sooner did the visible church begin to depart from the gospel than these men arose to keep fast by the good old way. The priests and monks wished for peace and slumber, but there was always a Baptist or a Lollard tickling men's ears with holy Scriptures, and calling their attention to the errors of the times. They were a poor persecuted tribe. The halter was thought to be too good for them. At times ill-written history would have us think that they died out, so well had the wolf done his work on the sheep. Yet here we are, blessed and multiplied; and Newington sees other scenes from Sabbath to Sabbath.

As I think of your numbers and efforts, I can only say in wonder - what a growth! As I think of the multitudes of our brethren in America, I may well say, What hath God wrought! Our history forbids discouragement." (From the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 1881, Vol. 27, page 249.)

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

 

[37818]

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.

 

[rsr]

Back to Spurgeon:

He well-earned the nickname of "Prince of Preachers," but on Baptist history he was at the mercy of Crosby, Orchard, et al., who had an ax to grind for successionism.

 

[robycop3]

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 ?

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

 

[37818]

. . . for successionism.

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]