This is the fourth in a series of articles written by Adam Ramsey of Liberti Church, Gold Coast, Australia, exploring what we can learn from Martyn Lloyd-Jones today in relation to the Reformed faith and a Scriptural understanding of spiritual experience.
The essays, of which there are five in total, need to be taken together. They are taken from original, yet- to-be published research undertaken by Ramsey for his Doctor of Philosophy thesis. They also, we hope, represent something of the generous-hearted, thoughtful, Biblical approach that en was founded 40 years ago in 1986 to embody. Next month: “The Book of Acts as paradigmatic in the theology of Martyn Lloyd-Jones.” While there are a number of ways in which the pneumatology of Lloyd-Jones bears similarities to elements of charismatic theology, it would be a category-error to label him as a Pentecostal or a Charismatic – either in theology or in practice – according to the ways in which those terms were understood during his lifetime.
Despite his increasing openness to the ongoing operation of spiritual gifts in the different eras of his public ministry, Lloyd-Jones consistently maintained a robust Biblical critique of several key aspects of charismatic theology and praxis, which will be considered below.
Importantly, Lloyd-Jones never applied the labels of either “Pentecostal” or “Charismatic” to himself or his teaching – even as other voices from within the Reformed evangelical tradition were less sure. Philip Eveson described Lloyd-Jones as holding to a “hypothetical continuationism.”1 Donald Macleod lamented that “the most highly respected figure within Reformed theology speaks in such a way that the new charismatics claim him as one of themselves – and with some plausibility.”2 In 1979, just two years before the Doctor passed away, Geoffrey Thomas described Lloyd-Jones and his followers as “theoretically Pentecostal”, since they held to a doctrine of Spirit baptism that was subsequent to salvation, but made no allowance for miracles, prophecy, or tongues in their own worship services.3 According to Iain Murray, Lloyd-Jones was “indignant” at the suggestion he now held to a Pentecostal position, declaring in a private conversation to Murray: “I was against Pentecostalism and I still am. My doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit is that it gives full assurance. I have never been satisfied with any speaking in tongues that I have heard. He is saying that my ministry is a contradiction of my teaching. It is very unfair to put the label Pentecostal on me.”4 In his own estimation near the end of his life, Lloyd-Jones rejected all such terminology in regards to himself. “Quite simply the Doctor could not and, more to the point, would not be pigeon-holed, no matter who tried to caricature him, as either a compromising charismatic or a cold-eyed Calvinist.”5
The Doctor diverged from mainstream Charismatic theology by affirming that the offices of apostles, prophets, and evangelists were distinctively tied to the apostolic era and consequently ceased with its conclusion. Yet beyond this, he also delivered several substantial critiques of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. Foremost among these was the views that spiritual gifts may be “claimed” in faith – specifically, the way in which this movement increasingly viewed the gift of healing as a guaranteed entitlement to believers. Furthermore, he opposed their insistence upon speaking in tongues (or any other spiritual gift) as the definitive evidence, or ultimate purpose, of receiving the baptism of the Spirit. Finally he expressed concern over their tendency to minimise sound doctrine, which often led toward excesses and fanaticism.
“Claiming” the gifts and the sovereignty of the Spirit
First, Lloyd-Jones rejected that any spiritual gift might be “claimed” in faith, viewing this teaching as a serious and detrimental minimisation of the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit. While he certainly believed spiritual gifts existed, the idea that they may be claimed “was quite contrary to Scripture.”6 Teaching on the gifts of the Spirit in 1966, Lloyd-Jones was emphatic: “you must never talk about ‘claiming a gift’; there is no such thing … No, you may ‘earnestly desire’… but you cannot go beyond that. To talk about ‘claiming’ is a contradiction of His sovereignty as the Giver.” 7 The Apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 12 v11 were the controlling verse for all of his views on the charismata, specifically that: “All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.” In response to those within the Charismatic movement who attribute the absence of particular spiritual gifts in an individual believer or church community solely to a deficiency of faith, Lloyd-Jones counters: “I want to suggest to you that this position is also unscriptural and once again finds no warrant in the Scripture itself. The teaching of the Scripture is that these things are to be considered in terms of the lordship of the Spirit. It is He who decides. “He giveth to every man severally as he wills.” It is He who chooses.”8
He expressed deep concern that certain strands of Charismatic teaching failed to preserve the theological tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility that is prevalent throughout Scripture. Particularly any presumption of entitlement to spiritual gifts undermined the entire concept of sovereign grace. “It is always right to seek the fullness of the Spirit – we are exhorted to do so,”9 Lloyd-Jones insisted. But he rejected any such notions of entitlement to any of them, always viewing them as gifts, never as rights. In this way, he viewed spiritual gifts as tightly connected to God’s grace, which was sovereignly given and never deserved. All of the spiritual gifts (charismata) were a visible demonstration of the grace (charis) of God,10 bestowed upon the church by the Holy Spirit for the edification and empowerment of God’s people. In this way, he understood the divine giving of spiritual gifts much like he did the divine giving of revival. Like revivals, which come and go throughout the history of the church, so too does the experience of spiritual gifts “come and go” in the life of believers. He did not believe that a gift could be claimed, nor did he believe that a gift could be called up and exercised on demand.11 It is God who ultimately decides the when, how, who, and where of both.12 Lloyd-Jones explains, stressing the sovereignty of the Spirit over both, that: “There have always been people who have taught that you can get a revival whenever you like. All you have to do is to pray, or to do certain things and to claim it, and you get revival. But the simple answer is, You cannot! … It always comes in the sovereignty of the Spirit … The same principle applies to the gifts of the Spirit. We must not legislate on one side or the other. We must not say ‘only’ for New Testament times nor must we say ‘always’. The answer is, ‘as He wills,’ as the Spirit wills.”13
Lloyd-Jones’ views on the gift of healing
Second, he applied this principle of preserving the Spirit’s sovereignty specifically to the gift of healing, placing him in direct contrast to the prevalent Pentecostal teaching at the time which stressed that it was always God’s will to heal. As a former physician who relinquished a promising medical career to pursue full-time ministry, Lloyd-Jones retained a profound and abiding concern for the physical well-being of the human body. While he believed that God continued to heal in the present age, he underwent a notable theological shift – as previously discussed – by reassessing and ultimately affirming the possibility of the spiritual gift of healing persisting beyond the apostolic era.14 Nevertheless, he maintained that physical healing was not automatic or guaranteed, rejecting any theological framework that treats healing as a right rather than a sovereign act of divine mercy: “The miracles, including the power of healing, were always something occasional, determined by the Spirit. It did not happen automatically that every Christian was immediately healed. Some men were healed, some were not. God has a purpose in all these matters. All these gifts, as I shall be emphasising, are under the sovereignty of the Spirit. He decides when and how and where. We must never think of it as automatic, that you just pull a lever and there it is, it has all happened. That is entirely foreign to the New Testament.”15
A.B. Simpson, who founded the Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA) in 1887 and is widely considered one of the forerunners of Pentecostalism with his teaching on healing, summarises the beliefs that Lloyd-Jones emphatically rejected. In his book, The Gospel of Healing (first published in 1885), Simpson popularised the belief that physical healing was definitively embedded in Christ’s atonement, arguing that “there is no longer need that we should suffer what He has sufficiently borne. Thus our healing becomes a great redemption right, which we simply claim as our purchased inheritance through the blood of His cross.”16 If Christ purchased healing in His redeeming work on the cross, it was always God’s will for believers to have it,17 with the ultimate requirement being for the believer to claim what already belongs to them.18 Oral Roberts, one of the leading Pentecostal figures from the 1950s through the end of that century, drew heavily on the teaching of Simpson and stressed the supremacy of “claiming faith” in physical healing, writing: “Remember that your own faith will make you whole. God rewards and compliments those who have it. Your faith will put God to work for you.”19
Against such teaching, Lloyd-Jones was adamant: “You cannot claim healing. The Apostle himself claimed healing three times and did not get it. Never claim; never even use the word. We are to submit ourselves – it is the Spirit who gives. The claiming of gifts … is something that is clearly incompatible with the whole of the New Testament emphasis. No, no, He is Lord, He controls and He gives. You can supplicate but you must never claim. Never!”20
Contrary to Charismatic theology, Lloyd- Jones had a more Biblically nuanced role of the place of sickness and suffering in a believer’s life, believing that like the Apostle Paul’s thorn in the flesh, sometimes illness is permitted for our good.21 God was teaching Paul the lesson of the sufficiency of God’s grace for every season of life believers will face, so that they may learn to confess with the Apostle, “Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor.12v9-10). Lloyd-Jones rejected outright the strain of Charismatic theology that would eventually evolve into what became known as “the prosperity gospel”, which minimised the role that suffering played in the sanctification of believers, instead promising that according to their faith, believers may claim both physical health and financial wealth.
In his 1971 lecture to the Christian Medical Fellowship titled “The Supernatural in Medicine”, Lloyd-Jones addresses the concept of “faith healing”. He exegetes the exhortation given in James 4v14-15: “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up.” In doing so, he is careful to show that even the faith mentioned here is a “given faith” – that is, even the faith to receive the healing, comes from the sovereign hand of God. “No one can work it up; he either has it, or he does not have such faith. It partly depends upon a man’s general spirituality and his general faith in God, and still more upon God’s sovereign will.” 22 Faith plays a vital role, but it is not the decisive factor. The Spirit heals sovereignly, according to His will. On this important point, Lloyd-Jones stood well and truly outside of the Pentecostal and Charismatic streams of the church. He concluded his lecture with a reminder that all physical healing, including
Not cessationist, not charismatic: The nuance of Martyn Lloyd-Jones
the gift of healing, is the sovereign prerogative of God, exhorting his hearers to be careful they did not quench the Spirit by being closed-off to the ongoing possibility of such demonstrations of spiritual power:
“God can work miracles today as He has done in the past ages. Perhaps we should expect Him to do so as the days are darkening, and the forces of evil seem to be emerging in an unusually aggressive and potent manner. We must not exclude dogmatically, as we have often tended to do, the manifestation and demonstration of the power of God to heal diseases, or to do anything that He wills and chooses to do. The old exhortation of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians still stands, ‘Quench not the spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.’ We must not be frightened or become uncritically credulous; but equally we must not ‘quench the Spirit’ or be guilty of reducing the power of God to the measure of our understanding.”23
The purpose and evidence of the baptism of the Spirit
Third, Lloyd-Jones strongly disagreed with all Charismatic teaching that obscured the necessity of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, by placing a focus upon speaking in tongues (or any spiritual gift for that matter) as the definitive evidence of its occurrence. While an analysis of how his understanding of the sovereignty of the Spirit converged in both his soteriology and understanding Spirit baptism will be examined in Chapter Five, it is important to note that his position did not align with Pentecostal/Charismatic teaching. In the theology of both Pentecostals and Charismatics alike, the baptism of the Spirit is attested to with the manifestation of spiritual gifts. In first wave Pentecostalism, the gift of speaking in tongues was considered the evidence of having received Spirit baptism. In the second wave Charismatic Renewal, speaking in tongues was no longer viewed as the definitive evidence, but as one possible manifestation of Spirit baptism alongside the rest of the charismata.
Lloyd-Jones believed that both positions missed the mark, asserting that upon the teaching of Scripture and the evidence of church history, that “baptism with the Spirit is not always accompanied by particular gifts.”24 Preaching in 1965, he states his position: “There are people today, as there have been now for a number of years, who say that the baptism with the Spirit is always accompanied by certain particular gifts. It seems to me that the answer of the Scripture is that that is not the case, that you may have a baptism with the Spirit, and a mighty baptism with the Spirit at that, with none of the gifts of tongues, miracles or various other gifts. No one can dispute the baptism with the Spirit in the case of men like the brothers Wesley, and Whitefield, and many others, but none of these things happened in connection with them.”25
So while it can be stated that he agreed with the Pentecostal/Charismatic position on Spirit baptism on the matter of believing it to be a post-conversion experience,26 Lloyd-Jones rejected the belief that there was an inherently necessary connection between receiving the baptism of the Spirit and the manifesting of any spiritual gifts.27 Instead, he taught that the baptism of the Spirit may be accompanied by spiritual gifts,28 but the specific purpose of the baptism of the Spirit is assurance, that in turn is evidenced by an enablement, to bear witness to the person and work of Christ.29 And as such, this may or may not include the giving of spiritual gifts. Lloyd-Jones was greatly concerned that the Charismatic position that made the gifts the functional centre of Spirit baptism obscured the necessity of the experience itself, and was the cause for some evangelicals to reject his teaching on the matter. In contrast to the beliefs of Pentecostals/Charismatics, Lloyd-Jones is emphatic on this point: “Let me say again that one of my main objects in this whole series of sermons is to safeguard the doctrine of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. There is a tendency on the part of some, because they dislike the gifts and the manifestations and the excesses, to throw out the doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit with it. Let me underline this important fact – you must differentiate between the two. It is possible for a man to be baptised with the Holy Spirit without ever speaking in tongues, and, indeed, without having some of these other gifts which the Apostle lists… .”30
Lloyd-Jones rejected the cessationist view that the charismata ended with the apostolic age. However, he was equally critical of the Charismatic claim that the charismata function as the telos or conclusive authentication of the baptism of the Spirit. He opposed both interpretations as being Biblically reductionistic, refusing to endorse either view.31 As Davies rightly observes, although “Charismatics and Pentecostals have both claimed him as an advocate of their views, a careful reading of ML-J establishes that they have misunderstood him.”32 Perhaps one of the clearest summaries of his position on spiritual gifts in general and the gift of tongues in particular can be found in a personal letter written to Gerald Golden on 18 September 1969 – after Lloyd-Jones had retired from the pulpit of Westminster Chapel – in which the tension between the Doctor’s desires to “test all things” yet “grieve not the Spirit” can be seen: “I think it is quite without Scriptural warrant to say that all these gifts ended with the Apostles or the apostolic era. I believe there have been undoubted miracles since then. At the same time most of the claimed miracles by the Pentecostalists and others certainly do not belong to that category and can be explained psychologically or in other ways. I am also of the opinion that most, if not all, of the people claiming to speak in tongues at the present time are certainly under a psychological rather than a spiritual influence. But again I would not dare to say that ‘tongues’ are impossible at the present time… .”33
Fanaticism as the result of minimising sound doctrine
Fourth, he critiqued the tendency he saw in Charismatic circles to downplay the importance of sound doctrine and drift into sensationalism and fanaticism. While his strongest warnings were reserved for the dead orthodoxy and formality he noticed among evangelicals, he was not in any way silent about the Charismatic tendency to offer “an uncritical acceptance of everything.”34 The latter error leads to “fanaticism” that he believed must always be condemned, and has often been the cause of “great havoc in the life of the church.”35 Whereas the first group failed to heed the warning of “do not quench the Spirit” (1 Thess. 5v19), he was concerned that the Pentecostals and Charismatics who comprised the second group failed to pay attention to verse 21, that commands them to “test all things; hold fast to what is good”. He warned that, by and large within the Charismatic movement, “doctrine is being discounted, and experience is being exalted at its expense.” 36
On this, he levelled significant critiques at any who would amplify spiritual experience, yet diminish the necessity of sound doctrine. In a 1971 lecture titled “What is an Evangelical?”, Lloyd-Jones described the remarkable growth of the Charismatic Movement over the past 15 years. He references the dangerous position of David Du Plessis, a leader within the movement, who taught that “nothing matters except ‘the baptism of the Spirit’,”37 and that “theology does not count at all.”38 He calls believers to examine themselves “in the light of the Scripture and of history, and especially in the light of the dangerous tendencies that surround us at this present time.” 39 He counselled caution and testing of all reported supernatural phenomenal, which was exemplified in his reflections on the controversial American faith healer, Kathryn Kuhlman, whom he details as one whose ministry has medically-verified physical healings and “preaches the Lord Jesus and she seems to be correct in her doctrine,”40 even as he went on to warn against other aspects of her ministry. The tone of warning and caution that Lloyd-Jones employed towards the Charismatic Movement shows that he did not accept it wholesale, nor did he outright reject it.
Hywel Jones, who was part of the Westminster Fellowship meetings and went on to become the principal of London Theological Seminary, remembers how “the Doctor was interested in anything which appeared to display signs of spiritual vitality, wanting all the information about it and urging us to have the same interest.”41 He notes that Lloyd-Jones rejected Warfield’s cessationism yet also urged “careful observation and evaluation [of the Charismatic Movement] in light of what the Bible taught … He did not urge us to adopt the practices of the Charismatics. Rather he called on us to seek the Lord without setting limits to what He might do or what we would allow Him to do, asking Him to turn to us in gracious revival.”42 So while aligning with a number of distinctives, Lloyd-Jones cannot be accurately described as ever becoming a Charismatic. As Michael Eaton insightfully concludes: “Lloyd-Jones cannot be interpreted simplistically as ‘for’ or ‘against’ the Charismatic Movement. To invoke him as foe or friend is pointless. If we will listen to him we shall find he has a carefully nuanced viewpoint that could help us a great deal in our thinking about Charismatic experience.”43
FOOTNOTES
1. Eveson, Baptised With Heavenly Power, 376. 2. Donald Macleod, The Spirit of Promise, 54. 3. Murray, D. Martyn Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, 694. 4. Ibid, 695. 5. A. Wesley Richards, ‘And the Pentecostals’, ET (April 1981), 16. 6. Catherwood, Martyn Lloyd-Jones: A Family Portrait, 128. 7. Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 12 Christian Conduct, 219. 8. Lloyd-Jones, Prove All Things, 47. 9. Ibid, 48 10. Carson, Showing the Spirit, 11. 11. Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 12 Christian Conduct, 253. 12. Lloyd-Jones, Prove All Things, 48. 13. Ibid, 47 14. For his earlier position on the gift of healing, see: Lloyd-Jones, Great Doctrines of the Bible vol. 2, 272. For his later position, stated in his 1966 sermons on Romans 12:6, see Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 12 Christian Conduct, 229-230. 15. Lloyd-Jones, Prove All Things, 43. 16. A.B Simpson, The Gospel of Healing, 27. 17. Ibid, 62. 18. Ibid, 66 19. Oral Roberts, If You Need Healing Do These Things, 107. 20. Lloyd-Jones, Prove All Things, 49. 21. Ibid, 43 22. Lloyd-Jones, Healing and the Scriptures, 37-38. 23. Ibid, 39. 24. Lloyd-Jones, Prove All Things, 53. 25. Ibid 26. Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 12 Christian Conduct, 232. “I say again that my position is that I believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a separate, distinct, unique experience. It may be accompanied by remarkable gifts; it may simply manifest the ‘regular’ gifts in a heightened degree. It is not for us to say that none of these things can happen. Anything is possible in the sovereignty of the Spirit.” 27. Kay, Martyn Lloyd-Jones’s Influence on Pentecostalism and Neo-Pentecostalism in the UK, 285. 28. Murray, D. Martyn Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, 489. “He accepted, of course, that gifts were involved but maintained (over against Pentecostal claims) that they were not a necessary part of what occurred.” 29. Lloyd-Jones, Prove All Things, 120. 30. Ibid, 146. 31. Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 12 Christian Conduct, 232. “So I am equally opposed to the people who make the rules on the one side, and to those who make the rules on the other; those who say that none of this can happen now that the apostolic era has ended, and those who say all Christians must speak in tongues.” 32. Eryl Davies, “Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: An Introduction,” Themelios 25:1 (November 1999), 47. 33. Lloyd-Jones, Letters: 1919-1981, 202. 34. Lloyd-Jones, Prove All Things, 57. 35. Ibid, 57-58. 36. Murray, D. Martyn Lloyd Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, 481. 37. Lloyd-Jones, Knowing the Times: Addresses Delivered on Various Occasions, 1942-1977, 312. 38. Ibid, 313. 39. Ibid, 315-316. 40. Lloyd-Jones, Healing & the Scriptures, 36. 41. Hywel Jones, “The Pastor’s Pastor”, in Christopher Catherwood (ed.), Martyn Lloyd- Jones: Chosen by God, 221. 42. Ibid, 222. 43. Eaton, Baptism with the Spirit, 32-33.
