Saturday, 3 March 2012

Lloyd-Jones' Theology Misrepresented

It was stated today that DMLJ believed in 'limited atonement.'  This is very strange indeed and downright untruthful. Just read the following paragraph from my book on DMLJ, please:


One of the things that struck me having some 40 years of reading the Doctor’s wonderful sermons, was the fact that I never found him anywhere preaching the high Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement.  If there are people reading this book who can show me where Dr Lloyd-Jones taught this idea, I’d be very interested.  But I have not found it in any of his published sermons.  I was a bit worried about this because the assumption was that he actually held this doctrine and believed it.  But nowhere have I read this in any of his published sermons.  The facts are otherwise.  For example, when Dr R. T. Kendal, one of Lloyd-Jones' successors, was minister in Westminster Chapel in London, he had contact with Dr Lloyd-Jones while the former was working on his doctorate, and sought his views on John Calvin’s theology of the atonement.  Dr Alan C Clifford, in his book on Philip Doddridge, The Good Doctor, (Charenton Reformed Publishing, Norwich, 2003:273, 274), states that when Dr Lloyd-Jones conducted his own examination of Calvin’s commentaries, he expressed surprise in finding “how frequently universalistic Calvin’s statements were.”  During a two-week period, Dr Lloyd-Jones phoned Dr Kendal repeatedly, and in excited tones, exclaimed, “I’ve found another one!”  During one such discussion with Kendal, referring to the doctrine of limited atonement, he confessed, “I never preached it, you know … only once on Rom.5:15 and I was in great difficulty when I did so.”  Mrs Bethan Lloyd-Jones was present when he said this to Kendal, and interjected, “I have never believed it and I never will.”  Dr Lloyd-Jones was quite clear on this particular theological point. 

In addition, please read these statements, in his own words, which make the opposite case, also taken from my book:


12.  “Well, what was that gospel?  Just this, that Jesus Christ, is the Son of God, that in dying He cancelled the power of sin and wiped out the sinful debt of humanity and that by the power of the His Spirit a man can be created anew and start upon a new life which is an eternal life.”  (63). 

13.  “Some appear as if they had never done any wrong, as if they had no need to repent and had no need for Christ to die for them on Calvary.”  (85). 

14.  “But look at His death for a moment and consider it as an expiation for the sin of the whole world.”  87).

15.  “Well, those sufferings were enough, according to John, for all.  Listen!  ‘He is the propitiation for our sins; but not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world,1 Jn.2:2.’  The whole world!”  (88).

16.  “But listen to the words of our Lord Himself as He calls from the cross, ‘It is finished’.  The sins of the whole world He had borne upon Himself …”  (88).

17.  “The sacrifice was completed.  It was indeed finished, once for all, world without end!”  (88). 



47.  “Yes!  God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, Jn.3:16.”  (198).  

48.  “...this great salvation that is offered to us by God is to the natural man something which is inherently incredible.”  (201. 

49.  “In view of the fact that salvation is of God and therefore supernatural, although we cannot understand it, it holds out a hope for all. … There is literally hope for all.  ...It is God’s work, and because it is God’s work, it is possible for all and can be offered to all.  ...There is literally hope for all.”  (203). 

51.  “...there He was in the house of Simon, full of power, yea more, full of love to mankind which made Him long to exercise and use that power for their welfare.”  (206).  

53.  “Listen to Him as He tells you that He has died for you, that He has reconciled you to God, that your past can be blotted out, and that your eternal future is safe.”  (221).

54.  “The great point, surely, is that there is hope for all, that God’s love extends even to the publicans and sinners.”  (227). 

55.  “What new hope for mankind appeared in Him!”  (228). 

58.  “The love of God does not merely talk about a new beginning, it makes a new beginning.  ‘God so loved the world that He gave.’”  (237).

59.  “…realise that this is the very Son of God come to earth to deliver us.”  (250).

60.  “They follow Christ solely to serve their own ends, and not because He is the Son of God, and the Saviour of the world.”  (264). 


62.  “It is there [in the Christ of the cross] that the whole of humanity is focused.  He is the representative of the whole of humankind. He died for all.”  (278).


74.  “He had met the God who was offering him pardon for his failure, who assured him that he would place his hand upon him, who gave him there a vision of his own future as the father of the nation, the father ultimately of our Lord Jesus Christ who was to be the Saviour of the world.”  (31).

75.  “…God in his infinite love had actually sent his only begotten Son into the world to live and die and rise again in order to make a way of salvation and in order that God might reconcile the world to himself.”  (47).

76.  “He came to die for our sins and to open the door of heaven for us.”  (83).

77.  “We shall not die because he has died for us and accomplished a perfect atonement in our behalf.”  (84).

78.  “The Saviour of the world was not born in Jerusalem, he was born in Bethlehem.”  (124).

79.  “They did not know it but the Saviour of the world was about to come into their very midst.”  (124).

80.  “…go to the Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God and you will be cured.  He can remove your guilt because he has already taken it away.”  (127).

81.  “Go to Him, that is all you have to do, He is the all-sufficient Saviour, He is ‘the power of God unto salvation unto everyone that believeth,’ Rom.1:16.”  (127).

Now, on the basis of these statements, most of which were taken from his evangelistic sermons where he was speaking to unsaved sinners, did he believe in limited atonement as understood by Owenites?  Assuredly not.  He believed that Christ died effectually for the elect but sufficiently for the whole world.

In other words,  no matter who or what the person is, if he believes in Christ, he will be saved.

Friday, 2 March 2012

Jesus' Brothers and Sisters


INTRODUCTION
As we have seen, the long ‘silence’ between Our Lord’s infancy and His manhood is interrupted only by His visit to Jerusalem and His appearance before the Temple teachers at the age of twelve (see Lk. 2: 41ff). On returning to Nazareth, Luke tells us that Jesus was ‘subject’ to His ‘parents’ and that He matured intellectually and physically (see vs. 51-2). Beside Mary and Joseph, ‘relatives and acquaintances’ (v. 44) would have met Jesus. Although the information is meagre, it is nonetheless useful and important.
In case we are tempted to think that Jesus had a lonely childhood, the evidence indicates the presence of other children in the family circle. At a later period after the beginning of His ministry, they—at least the boys (!)—are even named. Teaching in the synagogue during a return visit to Nazareth, astonished and offended listeners said, “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” (Mk. 6: 3). Since Joseph is not mentioned, he was possibly dead by now. Probably trained by Joseph, Jesus ‘the carpenter’ possibly ran the family business with His brothers after their father’s death.
MARY'S MARRIAGE AND MOTHERHOOD

More importantly, Mark’s evidence suggests that those mentioned were Jesus’ half brothers and sisters. In other words, after His own miraculous birth, Joseph and Mary— as husband and wife—had other children in a normal, natural way. Matthew’s account of Christ’s birth surely indicates this: ‘Joseph … took to him [Mary] his wife, and did not know her [in a marital sense] till she had brought forth her first born son’ (Matt. 1: 24-5; for ‘know’, see also Gen. 4: 1). While the use of ‘till’ does not necessarily imply that a previously non-occurring event took place afterwards (see Gen. 28: 15; 1 Sam. 15: 35; Ps. 110: 1; Ps. 112: 8; Matt. 12: 20), the reference to ‘brothers and sisters’ of Jesus makes it difficult to deny in this case. This view is strengthened by the fact that Matthew calls Jesus Mary’s ‘first born son’. This seems to imply that other children followed.
EARLY CHURCH CONTROVERSY

Such a view has not commanded general agreement. The identity of these ‘brothers and sisters’ was hotly debated among the early Church Fathers of the 3rd and 4th centuries. First, some—including Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius—argued that they were children of Joseph by a previous marriage. Thus they had no blood-relationship with Jesus. Second, Jerome and Augustine (of Hippo) argued that these ‘brothers and sisters’ were really ‘cousins’. Third, Helvidius – taking a more natural view of the evidence - taught that they were true siblings of Jesus.
In reply to the first view, there is simply no evidence for it in any of the Gospels. In reply to the second view, the Greek words translated as ‘cousin’ (anepsios, see Col. 4: 10, NKJV and sungenis, see Lk. 1: 36, AV) are not used of the ‘brothers’ of Jesus. In Mark 6: 3, Jesus is called their ‘brother’ (Gk: adelphos). Two other significant statements confirm this. First, when Jesus was teaching on a previous occasion, Mary and His brothers (and possibly His sisters) sought His attention. We read: “Look, your mother and brothers (Gk: adelphoi) are outside seeking you” (Mk. 3: 31-2). Second, when relating the attitude of Jesus’ brothers to His claims, John states that ‘even his brothers (Gk: adelphoi) did not believe in him’ (Jn. 7: 5).
NATURAL BROTHERHOOD
It is often claimed that ‘brother’ may be used in a broader sense than a sibling. This is quite true. The Israelites were to regard one another as ‘brethren’ (Heb: achim; see Gen. 14: 12, 14; Num. 32: 6), a fact confirmed in the New Testament (see Acts 13: 26). Furthermore, fellow Christians—irrespective of family or ethnic grouping—viewed one another as ‘brethren in Christ’ (see Col. 1: 2). However, these are derivative and metaphorical uses of ‘brother’ (Heb: ach; Gk: adelphos). Obviously, the very first and thus source example of the word in Genesis 4: 2 can only mean ‘brother of the same womb’. As we have seen, if ‘brother’ is used in a wider sense of ‘relatives’ or ‘kindred’, moledeth (Hb) and sungenis (Gk) rather than ach and adelphos are the words used.
It is also said that if Mary had other sons beside Jesus, Our dying Lord would not have placed His mother in the care of the Apostle John (see Jn. 19: 27). In view of the fact that—at that time—‘his brothers did not believe in him’ (Jn. 7: 5), Jesus clearly wished believing John rather than unbelieving brothers to care for her. What became of his ‘sisters’ we simply do not know. They were probably married and busy caring for their children in Nazareth or elsewhere by then.
SPIRITUAL BROTHERHOOD

Happily, ‘his brothers’ were eventually converted. They were members of the early Church together with Mary (see Acts 1: 14). The Apostle Paul supplies us with two important details about one of them. First, he tells us that the risen Lord Jesus ‘was seen by James’ (1 Cor. 15: 7). Second, Paul refers to him as ‘James, the Lord’s brother’ (Gal. 1: 19). Since Jewish Christians were ‘brothers of Christ’ in both ethnic and spiritual senses, Paul must mean that James was a ‘blood (half) brother’ as well.
Furthermore, of all Our Lord’s ‘brothers’, the career of James in the New Testament is important. After the Apostle John’s brother James was martyred by Herod (see Acts 12: 2), James - probably ‘the Lord’s brother rather than the Apostle James ‘the son of Alphaeus’ (Mk. 3: 18) - was a leader of the Jerusalem church (see Acts 15: 13). He was also the likely author of the Epistle of James. Instead of describing himself as an apostle, the author calls himself ‘a servant’ (literally ‘a slave’ from Gk: doulos). (James ‘the son of Alphaeus’ would have followed apostolic usage in his introduction had he been the author.)
 
 LESSONS LEARNED

First, unless there is something basically sinful about marriage, there is no reason to imagine that Joseph and Mary simply lived as brother and sister after the birth of Jesus. God’s gift of marriage was also available to them (see Heb. 13: 4). Apart from being the mother of the unique Son of God, Mary was also an example of motherhood in being the mother of Joseph’s sons and daughters. This is her lasting legacy to the Church, not as a ‘Mediatrix’ or ‘Queen of Heaven’ but as a dear sister in Christ. Although he and Luther seemed reluctant to question the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity, John Calvin rightly corrects the unbiblical errors of Rome’s view of Mary:


How necessary this warning became, in consequence of the gross and abominable superstitions which followed later, is known well enough. For Mary has been made Queen of Heaven, the Hope, the Life and Salvation of the world; and in fact, their insane raving went so far that they just stripped Christ and adorned her with the spoils. And when we condemn those accursed blasphemies against the Son of God, the Papists call us malicious and envious. Nay, they spread the wicked slander that we are deadly foes to the honour of the holy virgin. As if she had not all the honour that belongs to her without being made a goddess! As if it were honouring her to adorn her with sacrilegious titles and put her in Christ’s place! It is they who do Mary a cruel injury when they snatch from God what belongs to Him that they may deform her with false praises (Comment on John 2).
Second, just as physical descent from believing parents does not – of itself – make us Christians, even being a half brother to Christ did not convey spiritual life and privileges. Just as Mary trusted Christ for salvation (see Lk. 1: 47), so her other children were only Christians by faith in Him. Even James boasted no other relationship with Jesus than that enjoyed by all other believers (see Jas. 2: 1). Since Jesus is the ‘elder brother’ of all who believe (see Heb. 2: 17), may we rejoice in this precious saving spiritual relationship with Him. Irrespective of any other privileges or disadvantages, all may share this ‘belonging’ in the family of God. Amen!

 Supplied by Rev. Dr Alan C. Clifford, Norwich Reformed Church

What Is Lloyd-Jones Doing Today?

An interesting question!  He prayed for an abundant entry into the Kingdom of God.  As a child of God, he is now in the nearer presence of his Saviour whom he preached with such power and conviction. He is worshipping and adoring the Lord Jesus Christ, looking on His immaculate beauty.  Do I hear him talking to Paul and Moses and Jeremiah?  Do I see him prostrate before the Throne of the Ineffable?  Can I hear him singing hymns of praise in that melodious Welsh male voice?  Is he enjoying himself today?  Yes.  And he is enjoying himself primarily because he is enjoying being in the nearer presence of Christ. 

Do I see him having fellowship with John Calvin and Martin Luther?  He now moves over to where George Whitefield is, and with him the Wesley brothers, John and Charles.  Beside them is Richard Baxter and Daniel Rowland.  What a wonderful company of saints.  And look, over there is John Owen now discussing with Richard Baxter, each humbled by his respective theological inaccuracies, limitations and spiritual coldness.

Jonathan Edwards comes over to DMLJ, and they start talking about Christ's glory in man's dependence on His grace for eternal salvation.  Samuel Rutherford joins in as he speaks about the sheer loveliness of Christ his Redeemer.  Philip Doddridge appears and sings joyfully in praise of his great Saviour.  Oh, what would one not give to be there with such spiritual giants!  Howell Harris and Christmas Evans and Evan Roberts are mixing with the glorified spirits in heaven, and DMLJ makes his way over towards them.  Even in heaven Welshness does not seem to be eradicated.

Do I hear Cum Rhondda striking up?  Yes, and Martyn is in the front row of the singers, singing his holy heart out in praise of God for His great salvation.  They sing heartily and enjoy holy fellowship with each other, and with Christ.

Then there are numerous Christians there in that great company which no man can number and whose names we do not know; but they are all well known to God.  He has given them the same abundant and warm welcome that the great received.  And for the first time ever, they are indisputably and in reality "all one in Christ Jesus."

Oh, come, let us adore Him!