Joy Unspeakable: Power and Renewal in the Holy Spirit Martin Lloyd Jones

Status
Not open for further replies.

johnnycanuck

Puritan Board Freshman
I have read this book quite some time ago but I am wondering if anyone has read it?

My question is: is Dr. Jones correct in his view that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second work of Grace?
 
My question is: is Dr. Jones correct in his view that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second work of Grace?
Is that the language he uses? That's not a challenge, just a question.

Others will be better versed in Lloyd-Jones than I am, but I've read some of his material with great profit.

If he indeed held that the Baptism of the Spirit is a second work of grace, it would doubtlessly be the influence of Keswick theology, which in America developed into Pentecostalism. The Keswick folks were well meaning, and I believe many of them were solid believers, but they misinterpreted their own spiritual experience and fell into a form of perfectionism.
 
I loved that book.

His main point is that most evangelicals, and certainly many Reformed, believe that when you get saved, you get the holy spirit, and that's it. You got it all. Charismatics/Pentecostals believe that there is a second experience, usually with tongues or power or whatever your group is into. That's when you get it all.

He says both are wrong. For the rest of our lives, corporately and individually, God wants to pour out his holy spirit in greater measure, time after time, and we are to pray for a deeper walk with the Lord by His spirit. He goes through Acts and the epistles to demonstrate that nobody gets it all in this life at one time, there is always more, and more times of refreshing to be had. That book will shake any complacency you may have settled into, or any arrogance. He is not teaching a one time experience of holiness or perfectionism, quite the opposite. We need lifetime sanctification and that is a work of the Holy Spirit.

So OP, to answer your question: "My question is: is Dr. Jones correct in his view that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second work of Grace?" well sort of. It's a second work and a third and fourth and tenth and twentieth work. It was the Reformation, the revivals, the Great awakening, the second great awakening, and often just an individuals walk from glory to glory, to deeper presence in prayer and worship.

If you are into the Escondido guys and that any quest or prayer or personal experience for experiential spiritual things today is wrong, and Jonathan Edwards and Iain Murray and Lloyd Jones and many others were wrong (also see Poythress on the history of the Puritans and spiritual gifts- Mather, Flavel, Sam Rutherford) , well then, you wont like this book at all. Lol. Just being upfront to avoid flames.
 
Is that the language he uses? That's not a challenge, just a question.

Others will be better versed in Lloyd-Jones than I am, but I've read some of his material with great profit.
Yes, Dr Jones does use that language. But I think that that may be unfortunate. He's using it in a precise way that really means there's a first time that a true believer experiences the presence of the Lord in a most real undeniable sense. Subsequent fillings are just that, subsequent fillings. They're not different in kind or degree necessarily. He just uses baptism of the Holy Spirit to indicate it is the first time. With that in mind I don't have much trouble with his presentations. And I think I've heard them all. What he believes is radical enough without dwelling too much on what he calls the baptism of the Spirit. That was helpful to me anyway.
 
My question is: is Dr. Jones correct in his view that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second work of Grace?

I don't recall Dr Jones stressing a two-step salvation program that is in all cases the case. But true faith and a manifestation of the Spirit's working powerfully in your soul are often (I said often--not always) separated by time. Would anyone say that none of the 11 disciples were believers before the day of Pentecost?
 
The doctor lost his exegetical skills in this book. He was speaking more out of experience -- an experience that was not subject to Scripture; and he appealed to the experience of church history rather than the apostolic witness. He maintained there are Christians not baptised with the Spirit, which is contrary to 1 Cor. 12:13. I think this shows the problem with his particular view of revival. You are left making experience normative and have no way of judging it. You are then led to ground assurance on this naive view of experience rather than the truth of God's promises.

The baptism of the Spirit was an event. As Christ had His advent so too did the Spirit. Failure to recognise this leads to all kinds of distortions.
 
Yes, Dr Jones does use that language. But I think that that may be unfortunate. He's using it in a precise way that really means there's a first time that a true believer experiences the presence of the Lord in a most real undeniable sense. Subsequent fillings are just that, subsequent fillings. They're not different in kind or degree necessarily. He just uses baptism of the Holy Spirit to indicate it is the first time. With that in mind I don't have much trouble with his presentations. And I think I've heard them all. What he believes is radical enough without dwelling too much on what he calls the baptism of the Spirit. That was helpful to me anyway.
It's not the 'baptism of the Spirit' language that I find troubling; it's the 'second work of grace' language.
 
I have read this book quite some time ago but I am wondering if anyone has read it?

My question is: is Dr. Jones correct in his view that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second work of Grace?
As far as I know, there is no historic reformed support for this view point. Its teachings like this that have heavily influenced charismatic theology and modern evangelism.

As far as I know, there is no historic reformed support for this view point. Its teachings like this that have heavily influenced charismatic theology and modern evangelism.
I recommend you look at the WCF view on the Holy Spirit.
 
I don't recall Dr Jones stressing a two-step salvation program that is in all cases the case. But true faith and a manifestation of the Spirit's working powerfully in your soul are often (I said often--not always) separated by time. Would anyone say that none of the 11 disciples were believers before the day of Pentecost?
Dear Brother, you are confusing the history of redemption with the application of it. The events of Acts 2 belong to the former. We get the indwelling Spirit at the moment of true faith (as do all believer in all times) because Christ poured forth the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
 
Dear Brother, you are confusing the history of redemption with the application of it.
Thank you so much, @Eyedoc84 , for the correction. I know you are right. And I know you, too, @MW are right.
I even knew I was incorrect in the absolute sense, even as I wrote. I shouldn't forget you either, @TylerRay . You three and anybody else I neglected to mention were forthright, clear, and kind in everything you said. I loved the work of Dr. Jones so much that I have a soft spot in my heart for Him. My mistake was letting it into my head as well. As I wrote, I knew I was trying to squeeze honey from a stone, but I did it anyway.

I offer no excuse except to say that I have such a burden for this sad time of the Church that seems often so shallow no matter how deep the knowledge of God is in our heads. I also know that to swerve at all from what is written–"have[ing] heard Him, and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus" (Eph. 4:21), I would soon lose the joy of knowing Him too. My adagio is, "Knowledge about God if it does not lead to knowing God, is in vain." The twofold danger, on the one hand, is, at best, a shallow, unsatisfying Christian experience. At worst, it can turn you into what Michael Reeves calls an Evangelical Pharisee.

So, back to me for a moment.

I was wrong in what I said, and I repent and thank you, my faithful brothers, for a much-needed correction.
–Psalm 141:5 KJV
~~~~~~~

Following is part of a post on mine from last September when I first read Dr. Reeves's book.

I think Jesus showed us how sinister and dark self-righteousness is when he said to the disciples something he said about no other group in the world. He told them not even to be afraid of those that kill the body. But of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, he said,

‭‭Matthew 16:6-12 KJV
[6] Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
[7] And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
[8] Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
[9] Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
[10] Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
[11] How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
[12] Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

As God is my judge, there is no name or a face on my mind in what I say next. However, it seems that Jesus considered nothing more dangerous than self-righteousness in religion. And nothing more addictive. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be nice to them, either. They are hypocrites and don't even know it themselves.

These super Christians we all admire often are not even believers themselves -- they are themselves dead and deadly.
There's a great book by Welsh Theologian pastor and lover of Jesus named Michael Reeves entitled,



These are the opening sentences of the book:​
 Beware of the Leaven What is the most urgent need of the church today? Better leadership? Better training? Healthier giving? Orthodoxy? Moral integrity? Each of these is undoubtedly needed, but underneath them all lies something even more vital: gospel integrity. In Luke 12, when thousands had gathered together to hear Jesus, he began to say to his disciples first, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy” (v. 1). That might have been unsurprising had he been warning the people as a whole, but he said it to his disciples first, to those who had already left all and followed him. Clearly, hypocrisy—a lack of integrity in both head and heart—was a danger even for them. Matthew records Jesus saying to his disciples, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matt. 16:6). Seeing this, J. C. Ryle commented that Christ “foresaw that the two great plagues of His Church upon earth would always be the doctrine of the Pharisees and the doctrine of the Sadducees.”1 So it is not that Pharisaism was the only threat to the church that Jesus foresaw, but it was perhaps the primary one. Pharisaism, after all, is the sort of heartless formal religion that marks the first subtle step in the spiritual decline of a church before it ever slides into outright apostasy. It is the perpetual internal menace we can overlook as we dissect and bemoan the failure of others.​
 
Last edited:
I think this shows the problem with his particular view of revival. You are left making experience normative and have no way of judging it
Agreed. If he had read John Calvin's Institutes Book 1:9 he would have realised the dangers of having the Spirit distinct from the word.

On needs to point out that the best reflections on this come from great Revivals. John Knock could describe the Scottish Reformation as 'the Holy Spirit came on ordinary men, in great abundance. George Smeaton and Sinclair Ferguson wrote books on the Holy Spirit in the Scottish tradition where they argue for the Word working with the Spirit , the Spirit truly brings power to the Word.
 
They are good recommendations, Stephen, especially Smeaton. Both he and Ferguson were influenced by Owen; and of course all of them trace back to Calvin, but ultimately to Scripture.
 
John Knock
Oops, that should be John Knox.
They are good recommendations, Stephen, especially Smeaton. Both he and Ferguson were influenced by Owen; and of course all of them trace back to Calvin, but ultimately to Scripture.
Glad you also appreciate the Scottish works on the Holy Spirit, Matthew. It seems to me the Dutch writers tend to be a little cautious in their views on the Holy Spirit. The Welsh tend to be too subjective- the Methodist influence maybe. I agree that Scottish writers such as Smeaton have a good balance on Word and Spirit.

A couple of comments on Martyn Lloyd-Jones book. Biographer Iain Murray says that Joy Unspeakable should be read with Prove all things. He said that Martyn Lloyd-Jones intended these to be read together and that separating them distorts Dr Lloyd-Jones view on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

It is worth noting that older Divines used the term Baptism of the Spirit to refer to a true outpouring of the Spirit in Revival. The problem is that the modern Charismatic movement means that we need to be very careful how we define our terms.
 
MLJ states “It is possible for us to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ without having received the baptism of the Holy Spirit”.

To prove his point, he appeals to the experience of the disciples in the early church, that their zeal was not apparent until Pentecost.

In so doing, he fails to comprehend the significance of Pentecost.

Pentecost was the moment when the Holy Spirit indwelt the believer and was an event that cannot and will not be repeated. The gift of the Holy Spirit would be extended beyond those individuals in Old Testament times who were set apart for special office—in priestly, kingly, and prophetic ministry—to God’s people at large - Jew and Gentile alike. The subsequent outpouring of the Holy Spirit on in Acts 8, 10 and 19 were the fulfilment of Jesus' promise that when He leaves, He would send the Holy Spirit, another Comforter to give them (and us) the power and the strength so that the gospel will go from Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the earth. These events confirmed that the the Samarians, Gentiles and even those who were the disciples of John the Baptiser were included into Christ.

Pentecost was an event in Redemptive History that happened to proclaim that God no longer only dwelt in the Temple, but now each and every believer becomes the temple of God.

I am in full agreement that the significance of the baptism of the Holy Spirit has to do principally with the Holy Spirit's empowering Christians for ministry. And I can understand that MLJ is passionate in his appeal that Christians are far too often not living in the power of the Holy Spirit.

MLJ links “the sealing of the Spirit” to “baptism with the Spirit” in that both, he alleges, are available to all Christians but only enjoyed by some. Sadly, MLJ was not satisfied with what we might call the “ordinary Christian life and experience.” He wanted more. He believed that more was available. He decried the church being satisfied with less. In his zeal for more, he went seriously astray.

We as Christians, will have a battle with the flesh until glorification and we often fail to mortify the flesh and live daily a life of repentance, and constant reliance on the Word to help in our sanctification. But we have been indwelt, sealed and have the Holy Spirit as a guarantee that we belong to Christ. I do want to live more and more conformed to Christ and be a faithful ambassador for Him, as the the Apostle Peter clearly states in 2 Peter 1:3-10, if we make every effort to live daily according to these verses, we will be effective and fruitful. So as Peter ended in verse 10, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.
 
Oops, that should be John Knox.

Glad you also appreciate the Scottish works on the Holy Spirit, Matthew. It seems to me the Dutch writers tend to be a little cautious in their views on the Holy Spirit. The Welsh tend to be too subjective- the Methodist influence maybe. I agree that Scottish writers such as Smeaton have a good balance on Word and Spirit.

A couple of comments on Martyn Lloyd-Jones book. Biographer Iain Murray says that Joy Unspeakable should be read with Prove all things. He said that Martyn Lloyd-Jones intended these to be read together and that separating them distorts Dr Lloyd-Jones view on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

It is worth noting that older Divines used the term Baptism of the Spirit to refer to a true outpouring of the Spirit in Revival. The problem is that the modern Charismatic movement means that we need to be very careful how we define our terms.
Your last paragraph is precisely the distinction Dr. Lloyd Jones makes in several places.
 
Iain Murray's book "Martyn Lloyd-Jones Messenger of grace" points out that some of Dr Lloyd-Jones views on the Baptism of the Spirit were unscrptural (see ch 7). That said, Iain Murray also points out that Dr Lloyd-Jones emphasis on the importance of the power of the Holy Spirit is sorely needed today.
 
When the Lord first opened my eyes to the truth of Reformed theology, I started listening to MLJ fairly early on. I really enjoyed his sermons until I came upon a sermon that talked about being baptized in the Holy Spirit as a second filling. I admit that I immediately turned it off and I have never revisited any of his sermons since. That being said I know that I could certainly benefit from some of his other writings/sermons. I also understand that the majority of his theology was sound and trustworthy.

However, I came out of Pentecostalism, and this teaching skirts that abominable theology much too close for my comfort. As a matter of fact, as most of you probably know, being "baptized in the Holy Spirit" is very typical Pentecostal/ charismatic phraseology. And it would appear based on MLJ's own explanation of this phrase, his understanding is not all that different from the Pentecostal's, and that is a problem.

What I find incredible is how many churches that are not Pentecostal have begun to imbibe the charismatic Kool aide underestimating what the inevitable end results will be. And I think that some of this may be because of otherwise sound teachers, such as MLJ, having this kind of influence with regard to his teaching on the Holy Spirit. Or because so many have been introduced to charismatic or at least charismatic adjacent theology through the likes of Henry Blackaby's 'Experiencing God' and the sort. Not to mention most of them sing Hillsong, Bethel, Elevation, and Jesus Culture music almost exclusively. And all of those songs are permeated with either overt or at least implied charismatic theology. (I am speaking mostly of Southern Baptist churches with regard to Henry Blackaby and the music.)

From my own experience, 4th generation Pentecostalism, I can tell you that the ultimate end is a theology that leads to compartmentalization of habitual sin that can repeatedly be remedied by a good dose of Holy Spirit goose bumps, weeping at the "altar", being slain in the "spirit", jumping, running, or swinging from the chandeliers and eating the carpet tacks as opposed to true repentance (being sorry for sin and hating and forsaking it because it is displeasing to God.). These things in turn lead to fornication, adultery, broken homes, drug addictions and much, much worse.

There may come a time where I might find some use for the teachings of this undeniably great man of God. But there are just too many great teachers out there without the baggage that I have yet to read. Many of them sit on my bookshelf even now, just waiting for me to get to them. So, he will have to wait.

That being said, I am sorry if I strayed too far away from the topic of the OP.
 
I appreciate the earlier comments of my dear friend Lynnie, who alluded to the fact that it is necessary to move away from particular vocabulary, such as "second", which is not adequate enough to describe nor differentiate between individual encounters, experience, and expression. I guess it is not too dissimilar from the experience of “Christian” who enters by the wicket gate, and yet later has a second experience at the Cross. Is then entering through the narrow gate different from arriving at the Cross? Although the differentiation in that context pertains to salvation and assurance, the principle is similar insofar as the distance or time between, dare I say “the two” experiences will undoubtedly vary between individuals.

The use of the word “second” seems to be unfortunate, as my friend rightfully highlighted that such experiences with God can be considered to be secondary, due to their impact; but that there are many subsequent experiences along the way, which may or may not be so impactful. The transformational trail truly is ongoing, and to merely limit this to either one or two blessings or significant milestones in the journey with Him, is difficult to embrace, given that His mercies are new every morning.

It is not outside the realms of possibility that men and women may rightfully articulate their most powerful or readily identifiable “experience” with the Lord, whose revelation is not necessarily translatable to all. Furthermore, there are certainly those who have ‘gifts” which have lain dormant for many years and have not been fanned into flame so to speak. This does not mean that such individuals only had “one blessing” at all, and it may well be that those gifts and callings of God which are “irrevocable” have simply not been discovered or expressed, as they perhaps ought to have been.

At the risk of being misinterpreted of propagating a belief in mere “works”, it is not unreasonable to return to the fact that God is “a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (Heb. 11:6) and that He fills those who “hunger and thirst after righteousness” (Matt. 5:6); and that both are truly life-long matters for which God will bless as and when He sees fit to do. Perhaps that is just too oversimplistic and naive of me to state?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top