For the sake of clarity, let me explain the breakdown of the book. The first half is a narrative of what the doctor's ministry meant to me personally - and it is a personal reflection and appreciation. The second half is made up of extracts from his own sermons, over 320 of them, and these tell us what the Doctor believed about the Gospel and other Gospel issues. What most people do not know is that DMLJ himself stated that he never believed in limited atonement, nor did he preach it ("only once on Rom.5:15, and I was in great difficulty when I did") - nor did the other Dr Lloyd-Jones, his wife, Bethan, so it is impossible how the impression could possibly be arrived at that he was, as some describe him, "a committed TULIP Calvinist," whatever that is.
It would be profitable if those who seem to be exercised by this matter did as I did and extracted every statement the Doctor made that indicates that he believed in limited atonement. This would clear up the matter once and for all. I wish them well!
Having neither seen nor read the book, some people have already made up their minds that the book as well as the Doctor's theology/soteriology is unsound. That is regrettable, because until the contents of the book are actually read and the accuracy of the references checked out from the original sources, people cannot possibly come to such an unwarranted conclusion. Basic integrity demands that the book is read first before coming to any conclusion about it's contents.
I think there is a great tendency within evangelicalism for Christians not to do their own thinking or to carry out their own research. There is an incipient Roman Catholicism abroad within reformed evangelicalism in which Christians simply take as true whatever the "bishops" within that constituency say is the truth.
So what will this book achieve? It will provide possibly a stepping stone for evangelicals who are interested in discovering the truth about what DMLJ believed, taught and preached about the Gospel's content, and that can only be good for our precious faith.
I have been appalled at the way reformed evangelicals have resorted to what could be termed 'dishonesty' to maintain and promote their faith. The view that confessions can usurp the supreme place in the life of the Church was confirmed in a old edition of the Banner of Truth magazine when the writer lamented the fact that some reformed men, while affirming that they held the Scriptures to be the supreme standard of faith and conduct, and confessional formulations to be subordinate, actually and in practice made what is subordinate into the supreme. For such men, it mattered only secondarily what Scripture plainly taught, while what the confessions said was paramount. This is precisely my position.
I think reformed evangelicals need to return to the position where in actual fact and practice the Scriptures are our supreme and only final authority in all matters of faith and worship, not any man-made formulations. Confessions have their place, undoubtedly, but they are NOT Scripture.
This was DMLJ's often repeated position, and it's mine, too.
If anyone reading this post wants to review the book, available at this site, I would ask that they check my extracts from DMLJ's own writings/sermons, my use of which I trust they will find to be accurate, and then if they disagree with what the Doctor said, so be it and then say so in their review.