Lloyd-Jones On the Need of Evangelistic Preaching

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

"It is assumed that because people are members of the Church that they are Christian. This is dangerous and wrong for this reason, that if you assume that, you will tend therefore, in all your services, to preach in a manner suited to Christian believers. Your messages will always be instructional, and the evangelistic element and note will be neglected, perhaps, almost entirely. This is a very great and grievous fallacy. Let me give you reasons for saying that. I would start with my own experience. For many years I thought I was a Christian when I was not...What I needed [from the preacher] was preaching that would convict me of sin and make me see my need, and bring me to true repentance and tell me something about regeneration...This I think has been one of the cardinal errors of the Church especially in this present century." --

Martin Lloyd-Jones, "Preaching and Preachers" pg. 146

 

[Jeff Burns]

Reading through P&P for the first time right now, about 200 pages in and it is amazing. Easily the best book I've ever read on the subject.

 

[Zach]

Even people who are Christians and have been for many years need good, gospel-centered, evangelistic preaching that will convict us of sin and point us to the Savior. We can never hear the gospel too much. Excellent reminder from Lloyd-Jones. Thanks for sharing, Pastor Glaser.

 

[MW]

You are blessed, Joshua.

Without wanting to detract from Dr. Lloyd Jones' point, or to undermine in any way the fruitful work he was enabled to perform in the Lord's service -- it must be remembered that the Doctor was caught up with a revivalistic understanding of conversion and a higher life view of assurance. These do not lend themselves to a well rounded understanding of the normal Christian life.

 

[J. Dean]

That's what it's supposed to be: law to convict, and gospel to comfort. Unfortunately, Dr. Jones in his point is correct: you get far too much moralism without gospel in the church today stemming from an assumption of conversion, and unfortunately it's not found only in the Wesleyan-Arminian section of the church.

I cannot remember if it was R.C. Sproul who said this, but whoever it was made the point that it is VERY tempting to reduce sermons to moralizing. I don't know whether or not this is a common temptation for pastors to deal with, but it's certainly understandable to see this as a temptation.

 

[MW]

What do you mean by "a revivalistic understanding of conversion and a higher life view of assurance?" and where in his writings do you find him caught up in such?

Basically, the revivalist understanding of conversion seeks after the emotional aspects which have come to be connected with periods of revival as a part of the initial work of grace. The higher life view of assurance associates full assurance with a second blessing or the the baptism of the Spirit. For primary sources, see the books, Revival, and Joy Unspeakable. For a secondary source which offers analysis and critique of Joy Unspeakable, see Iain Murray's Messenger of Grace.

 

[timmopussycat]

"It is assumed that because people are members of the Church that they are Christian. This is dangerous and wrong for this reason, that if you assume that, you will tend therefore, in all your services, to preach in a manner suited to Christian believers. Your messages will always be instructional, and the evangelistic element and note will be neglected, perhaps, almost entirely. This is a very great and grievous fallacy. Let me give you reasons for saying that. I would start with my own experience. For many years I thought I was a Christian when I was not...What I needed [from the preacher] was preaching that would convict me of sin and make me see my need, and bring me to true repentance and tell me something about regeneration...This I think has been one of the cardinal errors of the Church especially in this present century." --


Martin Lloyd-Jones, "Preaching and Preachers" pg. 146​

Without wanting to detract from Dr. Lloyd Jones' point, or to undermine in any way the fruitful work he was enabled to perform in the Lord's service -- it must be remembered that the Doctor was caught up with a revivalistic understanding of conversion and a higher life view of assurance. These do not lend themselves to a well rounded understanding of the normal Christian life.

If you don't wish to detract from MLJ's point here, why did you place in doubt his understandings of conversion and assurance in your reply?

Lloyd-Jones' second reason for his belief in the necessity of regular evangelistic is also worth quoting.

. . . this has been reinforced many times in my experience as a pastor. . . my most common experience in conversation with people [who wanted to become Westminster chapel members] was hearing that these young people – usually graduates or undergraduates] had come up to London . . . from their home churches fully believing that they were Christians. . . They went on to tell me that . . .having listened to the preaching . . . especially on Sunday nights, when my preaching was invariably evangelistic, the first thing they discovered was that they had never been Christians at all and that they were living on a false assumption. . . Then gradually they had come to see the truth clearly and experienced its power and become truly Christian. That has been my commonest experience in the ministry. Preaching and Preachers 146 ff.

It must be remembered when reading the above that MLJ made a consistent practice of actively discouraging emotional outbursts in the services he led. So his phrase "seeing the truth and experienced its power" should not be read through a "revivalistic" lens.

A third reason for taking MLJ's point seriously is that he was the man with possibly had the most widespread and detailed first hand knowledge of the state of English Nonconformity from 1945 through 1970. Not only did he preach 3 times a week in his own church during those years, he also preached at least once a week in other churches throughout the UK. So this observation may have been grounded in the state of English non-conformity as a whole.

 

[MW]

If you don't wish to detract from MLJ's point here, why did you place in doubt his understandings of conversion and assurance in your reply?

His point is perfectly valid as an evangelical conviction quite apart from his own experience. Once he brought his experience into it, it required this point to be read through the lens of his experience. He stated, "I would start with my own experience." That experience, or at least his interpretation of that experience, has come under criticism even from those who have acknowledged their great debt to his ministry, i.e., Iain Murray.

 

[timmopussycat]

If you don't wish to detract from MLJ's point here, why did you place in doubt his understandings of conversion and assurance in your reply?

His point is perfectly valid as an evangelical conviction quite apart from his own experience. Once he brought his experience into it, it required this point to be read through the lens of his experience. He stated, "I would start with my own experience." That experience, or at least his interpretation of that experience, has come under criticism even from those who have acknowledged their great debt to his ministry, i.e., Iain Murray.

Using one's own experience to illustrate what may or may not be a common condition, (which is how MLJ adduced it) does not, in itself, require others to view true spiritual realities through the lens of that experience. Not only may other people have different experiences but an individual's experience may not be in accord with Biblical reality.

The only part of MLJ's own experience he brought into the picture in the point quoted was that he was an example of a man who thought himself a Christian when he himself was not one. That people can be confused about whether or not they are truly Christians is certainly Biblical reality, since it is something our Lord and Paul both warn against.

In Messenger of Grace, Murray's criticism of MLJ's teaching of assurance in Joy Unspeakable seems to be primarily limited to critiquing the doctor's labeling that assurance as "the baptism of the Holy Spirit." He does not seem to criticize the Reformed orthodoxy of MLJ's views of what immediate assurance is (nor his teaching on any of the other forms of assurance) either in Joy Unspeakable, or in the fuller treatment of it in MLJ's commentary on Rom 8:5-17, although he does, however, in Fight of Faith, correctly suggest that the doctor could have been more guarded in expressing the relationship of immediate relationship to those other forms. But Murray nowhere critiques MLJ's recognition that he was not a believer when he had previously thought he was, a recognition which, in itself, is not necessarily connected to his doctrines of conversion or assurance.

It is certain that Lloyd-Jones' change of mind regarding his spiritual condition was not influenced by Edwards' views on affections, since the doctor only encountered Edwards after being in the ministry for some years. Nor does he seem to have been influenced his denomination's historic views on these matters of which he then knew little. According to Murray's The First Forty Years, the change may have been stimulated by MLJ's discovery, in relatively short order, of the biblical doctrines of predestination through his general reading and his exposure to psychological analysis in his medical training that showed the impossibility of "free will" together with his recognition that he himself was in bondage to sin.

 

[earl40]

I have found most people who think they were adult converts were mistaken in that we all have the tendency to equate extreme emotions as being the mark of faith. Try asking someone who thinks they were converted in later life if their belief in Jesus changed (Him being God and His resurrection). I have, and the answer is that they did indeed believe He was God and rose from the dead before they had the experience.

I have even heard RC Spoul admit that He may have believed before he was in collage and this contrary to how he protrays when he thinks he may have been converted.

 

[timmopussycat]

I have found most people who think they were adult converts were mistaken in that we all have the tendency to equate extreme emotions as being the mark of faith. Try asking someone who thinks they were converted in later life if their belief in Jesus changed (Him being God and His resurrection). I have, and the answer is that they did indeed believe He was God and rose from the dead before they had the experience.

I have even heard RC Spoul admit that He may have believed before he was in collage and this contrary to how he protrays when he thinks he may have been converted.

Instead of marking conversion by asking when someone first believed that Jesus was God and that he rose from the dead (something the devils also believe), perhaps we should ask when folk knew themselves to be in bondage to sin and began trusting in Christ for salvation? The latter question seems to minimize the chances of remaining in the place of thinking one is a Christian when one is not. And it does so without bringing particular "emotional" experiences into the picture.

 

[MW]

Using one's own experience to illustrate what may or may not be a common condition, (which is how MLJ adduced it) does not, in itself, require others to view true spiritual realities through the lens of that experience. Not only may other people have different experiences but an individual's experience may not be in accord with Biblical reality.

The latter is the issue -- what accords with biblical reality. The evangelical point the doctor has made is valid and important, but it would be very difficult to use his experience as in any sense setting forth the normal Christian life. Present walking in the Spirit and showing the fruits of the Spirit, not some stereotypical experience and interpretation of conversion, is the central biblical concern in the matter of assurance.

 

[timmopussycat]

Using one's own experience to illustrate what may or may not be a common condition, (which is how MLJ adduced it) does not, in itself, require others to view true spiritual realities through the lens of that experience. Not only may other people have different experiences but an individual's experience may not be in accord with Biblical reality.

The latter is the issue -- what accords with biblical reality. The evangelical point the doctor has made is valid and important, but it would be very difficult to use his experience as in any sense setting forth the normal Christian life. Present walking in the Spirit and showing the fruits of the Spirit, not some stereotypical experience and interpretation of conversion, is the central biblical concern in the matter of assurance.

I don't think that MLJ was attempting to set forth his conversion experience, which is that part of his experience raised in the OP, as "the normal Christian life." What he was doing was setting it forth a an example of something he had found to be a relatively common condition among church adherents all over the UK. He is not saying his was the stereotypical conversion experience.

And if you read his teachings on Rom 8:12,13 in the Romans commentary he will certainly agree with you that present walking in the Spirit and showing the fruits thereof is a vital part of the doctrine of assurance. And although he denied that this was the highest form of assurance, I don't think he would disagree that it was the most important: for it is the necessary foundation for the highest form of assurance (cf pp. 165 - 180 Zondervan ed.). One may experience the higher assurance at times, but one will not often find it without the assurance that comes from walking in God's ways.

 

[MW]

I don't think that MLJ was attempting to set forth his conversion experience, which is that part of his experience raised in the OP, as "the normal Christian life." What he was doing was setting it forth a an example of something he had found to be a relatively common condition among church adherents all over the UK. He is not saying his was the stereotypical conversion experience.

The reality is that numerous people have grown up in the Christian faith and could not tell you when they were converted. What matters is that they are walking as converted people now, daily confessing their sins and fleeing to the righteousness of Christ for salvation. Another reality is that many individuals have been made to feel as if they are sub-standard Christians in the light of all this emphasis on conversion experience, and there is no doubt that the Doctor has contributed to this unhealthy emphasis.

And if you read his teachings on Rom 8:12,13 in the Romans commentary he will certainly agree with you that present walking in the Spirit and showing the fruits thereof is a vital part of the doctrine of assurance. And although he denied that this was the highest form of assurance, I don't think he would disagree that it was the most important: for it is the necessary foundation for the highest form of assurance (cf pp. 165 - 180 Zondervan ed.). One may experience the higher assurance at times, but one will not often find it without the assurance that comes from walking in God's ways.

Romans 8 is the normal Christian life. There is no higher Christian life than that which is purchased by Christ and applied by the Holy Spirit to all believers. This is the inheritance of the saints. Anything higher belongs to the experience of Isaiah 14:13-14.

 

[timmopussycat]

I don't think that MLJ was attempting to set forth his conversion experience, which is that part of his experience raised in the OP, as "the normal Christian life." What he was doing was setting it forth a an example of something he had found to be a relatively common condition among church adherents all over the UK. He is not saying his was the stereotypical conversion experience.

The reality is that numerous people have grown up in the Christian faith and could not tell you when they were converted. What matters is that they are walking as converted people now, daily confessing their sins and fleeing to the righteousness of Christ for salvation. Another reality is that many individuals have been made to feel as if they are sub-standard Christians in the light of all this emphasis on conversion experience, and there is no doubt that the Doctor has contributed to this unhealthy emphasis.

MLJ was fully aware of the fact that many Christians close with Christ at a young age. It is hardly fair to blame him for the mistakes made by others who advocate a cookie cutter view of Christian experience that he denies when he specifically notes that "the degree to which this spirit of bondage [i.e. conviction of sin] may vary considerably in intensity. I am not saying that all must have experienced this 'bondage of fear' with the same intensity, but that all Christians must have experienced it in some measure." (Rom 8:5-17, pp. 207,8) Although he does not mention the possibility that some may have been convicted of sin at a low intensity level and simply forgotten the occasion or not realized exactly what was going on (possibilities that must be taken into account), the test he provides for those who are in doubt if they have ever been convicted will also help true Christians who worry because they can't recall their conversion: "Go to the [true] unbeliever and quote . . . these consoling, comforting Scriptures to him, you will find that they do not help him. Go to this other person who is truly a Christian, but is depressed [and in doubt of his salvation] at the moment and quote these Scriptures to him, and you will find that he will respond to them gladly and happily. Whenever people of this type hear these comforting Scriptures they jump at them and they are delivered from their depression. That is, to me, an absolute proof that . . . they are children of God." (ibid, p. 225)

But he also noted that many others have a different experience and the OP of this thread is the kind of preaching needed by those who are false professors for whatever reason. Please remember that the excerpt cited in the OP is taken from his lectures to preaching students, and deals with only one of the three varieties of preaching the doctor felt were necessary on a regular basis. And, as he points out, even those who truly know Christ will benefit from evangelistic preaching when it is properly done. See his Evangelistic Sermons at Aberavon for illustrations of his method.

And if you read his teachings on Rom 8:12,13 in the Romans commentary he will certainly agree with you that present walking in the Spirit and showing the fruits thereof is a vital part of the doctrine of assurance. And although he denied that this was the highest form of assurance, I don't think he would disagree that it was the most important: for it is the necessary foundation for the highest form of assurance (cf pp. 165 - 180 Zondervan ed.). One may experience the higher assurance at times, but one will not often find it without the assurance that comes from walking in God's ways.

Romans 8 is the normal Christian life. There is no higher Christian life than that which is purchased by Christ and applied by the Holy Spirit to all believers. This is the inheritance of the saints. Anything higher belongs to the experience of Isaiah 14:13-14.

MLJ is not saying that Romans 8 is not the normal Christian life, nor is he saying that there is a higher Christian life than that purchased by Christ and applied by the Holy Spirit to all believers. Your allusion to anything else coming from the devil would seem to imply that there is a disagreement between you and MLJ, however, on what an aspect of that life consists of, specifically the question of assurance. (One could even read your allusion as implying that on this point the Dr. was demonically deceived.) [Speaking for myself, I agree with both of you that Rom 8 is the normal Christian life, yet from time to time the last verses of Eph 3 give me cause to wonder whether it is the highest Christian life. Paul presupposes that the Ephesians have been sealed with the Spirit just as he presupposes the Roman Christians know the assurance of the Spirit (parallel states in the two groups?), yet he prays that his Ephesian readers may experience more than they already have - otherwise he wouldn't be praying as he does for them.]

This difference between you and him on assurance appears to come down to the questions of when the Holy Spirit applies all forms of assurance to all saints at all times, and / or whether all saints at all times have appropriated all that the Holy Spirit has available to be applied to believers. In particular, MLJ holds, in common with at least a substantial minority of the English Reformed, that there are 3 kinds of assurance: that derived from knowing that one trusts Christ who is faithful to his promises, that derived from knowing that one is generally walking in God's ways, and finally an occasional assurance given directly by God. From what you have said, it seems that you would hold that only the first two forms of assurance are biblical.

Since an element of assurance (whatever it actually is) is "the Spirit himself bears witness with our spirits that we are children of God", and given that some have made the case that attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil is what Christ meant by the eternal sin of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," It seems to me that we must be particularly careful in ensuring the Biblical accuracy of our understanding of any aspect of the Spirit's work - including assurance. Since not all here have an exhaustive knowledge of the entire Reformed tradition, it would be beneficial to learn exactly what your view of assurance is and the specific passages in the works of the particular theologians from which you derive it.

 

[MW]

Your allusion to anything else coming from the devil would seem to imply that there is a disagreement between you and MLJ, however, on what an aspect of that life consists of, specifically the question of assurance. (One could even read your allusion as implying that on this point the Dr. was demonically deceived.)

There is nothing in my post or in the quoted Scripture which mentions the Devil or demons. The Isaiah passage contains an oracle of judgment against one who was lifted up in pride. The verses quoted show the thinking process of pride -- of not accepting one's place before God and of making oneself better than others. Such is the case with those who insist on setting themselves on a higher plane of Christian experience. There is obviously a difference of opinion. The Westminster Confession of Faith is an ordinary confession for ordinary people. Its chapter on assurance provides biblical balance for all Christians. There is no preoccupation with conversion and no suggestion that a second blessing is needed for full assurance. Once again, the old is better.

 

[timmopussycat]

Your allusion to anything else coming from the devil would seem to imply that there is a disagreement between you and MLJ, however, on what an aspect of that life consists of, specifically the question of assurance. (One could even read your allusion as implying that on this point the Dr. was demonically deceived.)

There is nothing in my post or in the quoted Scripture which mentions the Devil or demons. The Isaiah passage contains an oracle of judgment against one who was lifted up in pride. The verses quoted show the thinking process of pride -- of not accepting one's place before God and of making oneself better than others.

I am glad to see that you do not subscribe to the popular view of viewing the subject the Isaiah passage to Satan.

Such is the case with those who insist on setting themselves on a higher plane of Christian experience.
]There is obviously a difference of opinion. The Westminster Confession of Faith is an ordinary confession for ordinary people. Its chapter on assurance provides biblical balance for all Christians. There is no preoccupation with conversion and no suggestion that a second blessing is needed for full assurance. Once again, the old is better.

It appears that you are misreading MLJ. He is not setting forth a second blessing teaching nor is he overemphasizing connversion.

The relevant passage in WCF is:

II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope;[5] but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation,[6] the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made,[7] the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God,[8] which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.[9]

When MLJ teaches his doctrine of assurance, in itself, (cf his Romans commentary 8:14-17) it is purely an exposition of this second clause in WCF 18.

]III. This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it:[10] yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto.[11] And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure,[12] that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience,[13] the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.[14]

What MLJ is saying is not at all contradictory to the WCF.
Do some true Christians experience assurance not at conversion but some time, even a considerable time, after their conversions? WCF says yes:
"This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it:"
Any charge that MLJ teaches assurance as a "second blessing" also charges the WCF with teaching the same thing.

Can the experience of assurance that comes to many in a biblical revival be attained by individuals, who "being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, . . . may, without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means" attain that assurance apart from a revival?
MLJ says yes:
"I want to make one thing plain at this point. Although we are here dealing with the subject in general, and as it affects a number of people at the same time, yet we must never forget that all this is possible at any time to the individual. . . We can seek them individually" (Revival, 213) His definition of revival is "just that state and condition in which these things happen to a number of people at the same time. (ibid)

Should Christians press God in prayer to give true biblical assurance at the same time to numbers of Christians who do not presently have it?
Five reasons would seem to indicate yes.
1) Do we not want our brothers and sisters in the Lord to know him better?
2) Do we not want to see the the worldwide church of God stronger, teaching more biblically and growing stronger Christians?
3) Do we not want to see God shut the mouths of unbelievers when they taunt "Where is your God?"
4) Do we not want to see a significant increase by at least an order of magnitude of the numbers of true converts within the churches? Note that in true revivals it has been documented that almost all the converts hold fast, unlike in American revivalism from Finney through Graham.

And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure.

Although MLJ never makes this a confessional level duty, he would agree. So the question becomes: would MLJ use a non Scriptural means to seek the confessional assurance?

Answer no: he recognizes the use of the appropriate means: Scripture to inform us as to what kind of assurance is possible in the Christian life, living a life that glorifies God, and seeking the fullness of assurance by prayer.

Is seeking assurance by prayer unScriptural? No, not when one remembers that assurance is ultimately the assurance of God's love to oneself in Christ. When that is realized we see that our individual prayers for assurance are simply repeating Paul's prayer that we may "comprehend . . .the breadth and length and height and depth and to know the love of Christ that surpasses understanding, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God." (in Eph 3: 18,19 ) Prayers for revival are simply a re-inserting of Paul's words "with all the saints" in their place after "comprehend."

For whatever reason, many people may have unfortunately misunderstood MLJ's teaching on assurance. But when that teaching is analyzed carefully, he is fully in line with the WCF.

 

[MW]

For whatever reason, many people may have unfortunately misunderstood MLJ's teaching on assurance. But when that teaching is analyzed carefully, he is fully in line with the WCF.

Perhaps you could write a critique of Murray's work; then the two analyses can be placed side by side to see which one accords with the facts. What you have written thus far does not draw anywhere near the centre of the issue.

 

[MW]

My attention has been drawn to Jeffrey Waddington's Review of Messenger of Grace at Reformation21

Lloyd Jones: Messenger of Grace - Reformation21

Again, without detracting in the slightest from the Doctor's evangelical heart or the wonderful work he was enabled to do by God's grace, I think the matters mentioned in the Review are serious enough to warrant dissent from the Doctor's teaching and a renewed adherence to the old paths taught in the Confession of Faith. The Review states:

Murray offers an extensive critique of his mentor's views on this subject (142-163) that is worth pondering. These comments ought to be considered carefully as they come from a man who highly esteems the good doctor. The criticism is not offered lightly or glibly. There is no specific incident described as the baptism with the Spirit. All work of the Spirit is under the mediatorial work of Christ (142). Is not all real assurance the work of the Spirit? ML-J was concerned to uphold the extraordinary work of God in the church. However, Murray is correct to note that God gives his Spirit in varying degrees. ML-J was not warranted to label one work of the Spirit as the baptism of the Spirit. ML-J was wrong in encouraging people to long for some special spiritual experience. The tendency is for Christians to long for some special spiritual experience now rather than waiting on God to grant special seasons of blessing in his own time. While I would not want to deny that God can exercise extraordinary providence in his world at his own discretion, I am afraid that encouraging Christians to long after these things is to undermine the ordinary means of grace that God has said he will honor.

The reviewer expresses himself as follows:

I must also say that I would have to side with John Stott over against ML-J on baptism with the Spirit and I wonder whether ML-J's concern for the third element in his understanding of the foundations of assurance wasn't problematic as well. Clearly the risen Lord's pouring out of his Holy Spirit on the church at Pentecost was closely and organically connected with his work in life, death, resurrection and ascension. In other words, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is part of that series of events connected with our Lord's life and ministry that cannot be repeated and ought not to be expected to be replicated in the individual life of the Christian. Does that mean that the Holy Spirit is not active in the life of the believer or the church as a whole? May it never be! But we do need to properly understand how the Holy Spirit works among the people of God and what we can expect in our Christian experience. Also, assuredly the Holy Spirit witnesses with our spirits that we are children of God. But ought we to expect some mystical direct encounter apart from the Spirit's witness in the Word and in sanctification? Clearly there is room here for further reflection.

This is very well stated. The Holy Spirit is the inheritance of the children of God. What is one saying about his inheritance in relation to other children of God when he claims a "second" or "higher" blessing?

 

[timmopussycat]

For whatever reason, many people may have unfortunately misunderstood MLJ's teaching on assurance. But when that teaching is analyzed carefully, he is fully in line with the WCF.

Perhaps you could write a critique of Murray's work; then the two analyses can be placed side by side to see which one accords with the facts. What you have written thus far does not draw anywhere near the centre of the issue.

1) Murray recognizes and agrees with the Doctor’s diagnosis of low spiritual conditions in the contemporary church.
“The danger of Christians resting satisfied with low spiritual conditions is a real one.” (MG 143)

2) Murray sums up MLJ’s teaching of assurance like this:
“He formulated it in terms of three grounds. First, the assurance . . . gained by the Christian who, on coming to faith, rests in the promises of God. Second, assurance strengthened as the Christian observes the changes in his life corresponding to what Scriptue says on the marks of the child of God . . . ‘third’ and ‘highest’ that . . . done by the Spirit to us.’” (MG 128,9)

3) Murray does not question the Reformed orthodoxy of MLJ’s view of assurance, and especially the third kind.
He sees MLJ as teaching that “this ‘baptism’ (i.e. direct assurance of salvation) [the third type of assurance] may be simultaneous with salvation, but more commonly . . . it comes much later. . . Such words agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith’s view of full assurance.” (MG 137) Although Murray does question the propriety of using the particular scriptures that the doctor employed to support this position that is not his fundamental point of disagreement.

4) Murray’s major disagreement, and one where I think he is absolutely right to disagree, is that he questions the biblical accuracy of identifying the third characteristic of biblical assurance, that given directly by the Spirit as “the baptism of the Holy Spirit.” While there “are six texts in the Gospels and . . . Acts . . . which speak of Christ baptizing with the Spirit . . . this activity is described as a verb not a noun. No specific incident is being described as the or a baptism with the Holy Spirit. . . Is it not easier to understand the New Testament as teaching that . . . all real assurance is the Spirit’s work.” (MG 142)

Let us carefully note that MLJ would not deny that all real assurance is the Spirit’s work, what is at issue in the disagreement between Murray and his mentor is whether one form of that assurance is "the baptism of the Spirit" or not. Note too that the error Murray is attacking is a consequence of the Dr.’s the linking of the doctrine of assurance with “the baptism of the Spirit.” If assurance of “the Spirit bearing witness with our spirit” is not “the baptism of the Spirit” then one can seek the former without seeking something higher than promised, since in that case one is only seeking “without extraordinary revelation in the right use of means” something “freely given him of God.” What we will then be seeking is a fuller deeper knowledge of the love of God, and that we may seek with propriety for that is something that Paul prays for the Ephesians.

Now one may wonder whether in the case of the direct form of assurance “freely given” means “already freely given and always immediately available for the taking” or whether it may mean something given at the Spirit’s discretion. The Confession seems to indicate the latter when it says “This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it.”

There are several places where Murray makes additional objections to the doctor's teaching, but in each case where he objects the subject of his objection not MLJ's doctrine of assurance itself, but arises from his linking of assurance with the "baptism of the Holy Ghost." For example:

5) He correctly notes there is an element of confusion in MLJ’s teaching when he says that ‘the intensity [of the baptism] does vary considerably’ yet gives consistently ‘overwhelming' examples (MG 145). Yet Murray, with the WCF, recognizes that the NT believers had “degrees of assurance.” (MG 146)

6) Murray claims that MLJ presented his teaching on 'the baptism of the Spirit' as something outside the realm of our faith and as the direct and immediate work of the Spirit which "inevitably leads to treating faith as belonging to a lower level of assurance."

If the link between assurance and the "baptism of the Spirit" were cut, this would not so much of a problem. (Although we don't want to weaken any lambs unnecessarily, the WCF does mention different sorts of assurance and Scripture does mention differing levels of Christian experience.)

7) Murray shows that MLJ’s linking the baptism of the Holy Spirit to assurance, would lead to an unhealthy search for sudden overwhelming experiences of the love of God in the future or an unhealthy dwelling upon past experiences. In this too, he is correct. (MG 146)

Yet once again I note that if we remove the erring label “the baptism of the Spirit” from MLJ’s teaching on assurance, we simply find ourselves seeking “without extraordinary revelation in the right use of means” something “freely given us of God.” More specifically I note that we are just praying for ourselves the prayer of Eph. 3:18,19.

8) His third disagreement is that the problem of low spiritual conditions could be addressed in a better way.
“I think the danger he wanted to meet can be addressed by understanding that Christ’s giving of the Spirit to the churches and individuals is not uniform: there are variations, measures and degrees of the Spirit’s work.”

Once again Lloyd-Jones would agree with his former assistant. In fact his whole teaching of "the baptism of the Spirit=assurance" presupposes such. Now I would agree with Murray that linking assurance with "baptism of the Spirit" is not the way to go. But one way I would address the general problem of low spiritual conditions is to encourage people to seek to know the fullness of the divine love, while walking to please God and trusting in his promises.

Yet Murray does not rest “at ease in Zion” (to use MLJ’s term for the spiritually complacent): Murray recognizes that Christians will always “have cause . . . to seek more.” (MG 144) “Certainly it is part of the nature of the Christian to long for the advance of Christ’s kingdom- therefore for seasons of special blessing, and, beyond them all, for the coming of Christ.” (MG 149)

9) His fifth disagreement is that there is no specific Scriptural promise of revival and that our desires and prayers must be regulated by Scriptural promises. And those promises include God supplying our every need, while “the baptism of the Spirit teaching” has “the tendency . . . [to give] the believer more hope for tomorrow than for today.” (MG 148)

Murray is here reading a both / and situation as an and / or situation. While there is no specific promise for revivals (at the corporate level of God’s people) there are Scriptural prayers for it. At the individual level there are not only promises of the adequacy of spiritual resources (the Ephesian believers have been sealed with the Spirit) for the daily tasks, there are prayers for an awareness of God’s love that transcend anything the same people have known (Eph 3: 18-19) This would seem to indicate that we are guaranteed the resources we need and that we may also grow in our personal experiences of the love of God to us as individuals.

 

[MW]

4) Murray’s major disagreement, and one where I think he is absolutely right to disagree, is that he questions the biblical accuracy of identifying the third characteristic of biblical assurance, that given directly by the Spirit as “the baptism of the Holy Spirit.”

When you asked, above, "What do you mean by ... a higher life view of assurance?" I replied, "The higher life view of assurance associates full assurance with a second blessing or the the baptism of the Spirit." To which you proceeded to correct my understanding of the Doctor's views. Now, when it has been brought out that Iain Murray finds the same fault, you say that he is absolutely right. I can only conclude that you were just being argumentative.

 

[timmopussycat]

4) Murray’s major disagreement, and one where I think he is absolutely right to disagree, is that he questions the biblical accuracy of identifying the third characteristic of biblical assurance, that given directly by the Spirit as “the baptism of the Holy Spirit.”

When you asked, above, "What do you mean by ... a higher life view of assurance?" I replied, "The higher life view of assurance associates full assurance with a second blessing or the the baptism of the Spirit." To which you proceeded to correct my understanding of the Doctor's views. Now, when it has been brought out that Iain Murray finds the same fault, you say that he is absolutely right. I can only conclude that you were just being argumentative.

No, I wasn't intending to be argumentative, but I was thrown off course by two elements in your post that created confusion. First, and least important, you confused me when you linked MLJ's "baptism of the spirit" to "second blessing" and since the only form of "second blessing" theology MLJ recognizes is a different error that effects sanctification, not assurance and it was an error he consistently critiqued, I couldn't see why you brought the term into the discussion. Not only did it leave me wondering if you had read MLJ as carefully as one should, I was also left wondering exactly what your objection to his teaching actually was; especially since I have never heard of any other "second blessing" teaching that is linked to assurance.

The second - and far more important - element of confusion in your post is that you cited both the Joy Unspeakable sermons and the Revival sermons together as equal sources of the doctor's error, something which cannot fairly be done if Revival is read with an eye to the 1959 context in which those sermons were originally preached. For, as previously noted, MLJ's teaching on assurance was, until the mid-60's, both Reformed and orthodox and not associated with "the baptism of the Spirit." He would only make that link in the Joy Unspeakable sermons preached five years later as a response to the first stirrings of charismania in Britain.

Since the Revival sermons were preached several years before MLJ made the erroneous link between "the baptism" and assurance when reading it we must presuppose the Dr.'s earlier understanding of assurance from the Romans commentary and not read his later errors back into the earlier book. For if we do so, we will easily miss or misrepresent the ultimate point of his teaching on revival. For MLJ, revival is not just powerful mass emotional experiences but, as can be seen in his handling of God's response to Moses prayer, "Show me thy glory" in Ex 33:18, true revival, whether for individuals or large groups, ultimately involves a deeper resting on the character and promises of God (something 2 Peter 3:18 commands), and, as his handling of Ex 33:16 and Is 64:1ff indicates, an increased power in the church's evangelistic witness to outsiders (something Paul consistently tells the churches to pray for). And this is true whether or not particular phenomena are present.

The key comment in MLJ's analysis of Ex 33:18 is "the teaching here is that our supreme need is a knowledge of the character of God. It is an astonishing thing to say, but it is nevertheless the truth, that all our troubles in this Christian life ultimately arise from our ignorance of the character of God. . . There can be no question at all but that God emphasizes this to Moses, at this point, for a very good and a special reason. It seems to me that . . . Moses here was tending to be a little bit to interested in . . . the spectacular. . . Now this desire is innate in our characters. . . [and is] essentially a result of the fall and of sin in us . . . We want some visible demonstration. . . And I feel that Moses here was animated by some such idea, and so God deals with him very tenderly. He says, . . . I will stoop to your weakness. I will let you see something. But, much more important than that, I will cause all my goodness to pass before you. I will give you a deeper insight and understanding into myself, into my character, into what I am. . . . And this is still our greatest need. Over and above all that we might see of the miraculous power of God is the character of God himself. . . . So I suggest to you that the supreme blessing that comes to the Church in a time of revival is this deeper knowledge of God in his goodness toward us." (Revival 226, 227)

And the key comment in his analysis of Isaiah 64 is "He is a God who can shake mountains and that is what [Isaiah] is praying for. He realizes that he is praying to a God who is still the same and who can do now what he did in ancient times. This is the power that we, too, should realize and pray for. . . We are troubled about the enemies of the church, we see the arrogance and power of the world. . .[but are] we clear about this power of God? Are we clear about its illimitable character? Do we modern Christians recognize that ‘the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds?’ Are you troubled still about all these philosophies and ideologies and everything that is opposed to God. . .? . . . The power of God – that is what the prophet prays for. He prays that the glory and the power of God may be made manifest. . . Why should Isaiah pray like this? And why should we not pray in the same way? . . . The prophet answers that question . . . ‘To make thy name known to thine adversaries.’ . . . These men prayed to God as they did because they had a zeal for the name and the glory of God.” (Revival 307 – 309)

 

[MW]

No, I wasn't intending to be argumentative but I was thrown off course by two elements in your post that created confusion.

If there was confusion, you simply needed to ask for clarification. Setting about to correct another's views where there is uncertainty is bound to lead to an unprofitable discussion.

 

[JimmyH]

From my point of view this has been a very profitable discussion.