Dr D Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Eph.5:25

Reflecting on what J. J. Murray and I. H. Murray affirmed, I searched the Doctor’s published sermons on Eph.4 where Paul deals with the doctrine of the church, especially her unity.  I was disappointed not to find any reference there to Christ dying for the church in that chapter.  I then read the entire letter of Paul to the Ephesians and there discovered that he dealt with the issue of the atonement within the context of Christian marriage.  The atonement was not his major focus in these expositions, however; his focus was on the Christian understanding of marriage.  This was positioned within the immediate context of the Christian’s responsibilities as a wife, husband, child and employee.[1]  Even when dealing with a subject as practical as marriage, Paul cannot exclude the consideration of doctrine, especially the doctrine of salvation.

Among the very first things he preaches on Eph.5:25-33 is his understanding of the love of God.  He sees it both in particularistic terms and in its universalistic sense.  He writes, “It is the same sort of love wherewith Christ loved the church; indeed, wherewith God loved the world.”[2]  He draws attention to the fact that this is the same Greek root that is used for God’s love (αγαπαω) both in Jn 3:16 and in Eph.5:25.  The love with which Christ loved the church is identical to the love with which God loved the world.  DML-J demonstrates particularism and universalism in his choice of words.  The love with which God loved the world is a love that loved the ugly, the vile, the ungodly, the sinful, the weak, the guilty and condemned.  It was a love that moved outward to another.  This is not a sentimental love, but a love that acted for the good of another/others; it was a love that gave. 

So to teach how husbands are to love their wives, Paul uses the illustration of how Christ loved the church – he gave and gave and gave again.  Christ’s love is a giving love, an outgoing love, a redemptive love.  His love has a particular object – the church.  Christ had already loved the church and had given Himself for her.  God loved the world and gave His only begotten Son for it, indicating that it was precisely the same love each time.  What He did for the world, He did also for the church, and vice versa.  Personalising what He did for the church by giving Himself for her salvation, DML-J proceeds to apply this to the individual, adding, “[Y]es but also ‘for me’, for every one of us as individuals.”[3]  “Every one of us as individuals” is included in Christ’s atoning work on Calvary. 

Bearing in mind that the context here is Christian marriage and the character and quality of the love that a husband ought to show to his wife, DML-J reiterates what he describes as “supreme doctrine ... no higher doctrine.”  A Christian husband is to love his wife sacrificially and without consideration for himself or his welfare.  His love for her is to be exclusive of all others, particular.  I remember hearing Dr John MacArthur[4] translating 1 Tim.3:2 on the qualifications of an elder, that he should be “a one woman man,” more familiarly, “the husband of one wife.”  The relationship is to be exclusive.  DML-J says, “- all that the Lord Jesus Christ did, he did for the church.”  There is no dispute here on either side of the soteriological debate, and DML-J is accurately reflecting what the great apostle Paul had written.  He continues, “He died for the church; He died for nobody else.”[5] 

These are clear and strong words from the Doctor, and, out of their context, they spell out an equally clear particularist understanding of the atonement.  But again his purpose in writing this is to demonstrate from the highest possible source the quality of love with which husbands ought to love their wives.  It is to be a particular love that is focused on their chosen spouses.  Christian men are to choose their love, and then to love their choice – exclusively.  That there is a particularity in God’s and Christ’s love is not disputed, and Paul brings this out here.  By extension, there is also to be a particular love of a husband for his wife.  Election undergirds what the apostle is writing, and election has to do with prior choice. 

It is important to note that when DML-J speaks about Christ dying for the church, he nowhere denies that Christ died only for the church, although the accompanying phrase, “nobody else,” in this sermon context has the potential to point in that direction.  Why, then, did he use this form of words here?  It was to teach these Ephesians, and therefore us, the exclusivity and particularity of marriage love. 

He uses this term in the sense that those whom Christ loved with this particular love and for whom He died effectually received incalculable benefits from that atoning death – they had their sins and guilt atoned for.  Wives also receive great benefits from being loved in that way by their husbands.   

This is not to deny that DML-J believed exclusively in an atonement that benefitted only the elect.  It is the quality of the divine love that is emphasised here.  Husbands are to show quality love to their wives – that’s the Doctor’s focus in these sermons.

But, and returning more directly to the atonement, DML-J had a great place in his evangelist’s heart those who made up the rest of mankind.  He goes on to teach that Christ also had a real, compassionate love for all men, and for these He died sufficiently and made atonement for their sins too.  To enter into the benefits of that atonement, they had to trust the Saviour.  For DML-J, Christ’s death was not a mere commercial transaction, a mere pecuniary act on His part; rather it was essentially forensic in character because it dealt with personal debt and guilt; pecuniary transaction dealt only with the impersonal.  In fact, in the same paragraph, DML-J uses the Lombardian paradigm to explain what he meant by these particularistic remarks.  Let him speak for himself.

His death, as Calvin and other expositors remind us, because it was eternal and because He is the Son of God, is sufficient for the whole world; but it is efficient only for the church. His purpose in dying was to redeem the church. He gave Himself for the church, for all who belong to her when she will be complete and perfect and entire. All was known to God from eternity, and the Son came, and gave Himself for the church.[6]

It was in this sense, and in this sense alone, that “He died for nobody else.”  Paul here safeguards the proper breadth of the Gospel, and DML-J does likewise.  Selective reading of the DML-J corpus is natural to dogma-driven theologians but it is essentially disingenuous and unjust for them to do so.  To infer from this that he believed about the atonement what Owen believed is quite erroneous, if not mischievous.  DML-J’s soteriology is balanced and gives due weight to the particular and universal emphases that are found in the actual text with which he is dealing.  This demonstrates his methodology when expounding the text of Scripture. He sticks to his text and says all it has to say.  And he does this with every text he handles, thus bringing out the due emphasis of that text in proper biblical balance.  It is interesting that J. J. Murray and I. H. Murray could only identify his exposition of two passages that they say indicate that DML-J taught limited atonement, and even this is open to question.  A careful reading of his sermons will demonstrate otherwise.  Great care must always be taken that we do not read into another man’s beliefs what we would wish was there, and isn’t.

It is unfortunate that DML-J went beyond what was written when he made this statement, “He died for nobody else,” a practice against which he constantly warned and a principle which at this point he contravened.  It is at least arguable that he allowed his mind to run off on a tangent, preaching as he did from the scantiest of notes; this does happen to preachers at times, especially those who speak in an extempore manner.  This is the only place that I know of where he has made such an extreme and uncharacteristic statement on the death of Christ, despite DML-J's ubiquitous universalism.[7]

As is well known, one or even two swallows do not make a summer, though the Murray's seem to think they do.  They have tried, unsuccessfully, to create an uncharacteristic DML-J position on the atonement in a way not dissimilar to what Pharaoh did to the Hebrews in Egypt where they were expected to make clay bricks without straw.[8]  The Murray's may have a little bit of clay, but they have no straw and they didn't end up with any bricks, either!

Further, it is of particular note that DML-J sees our salvation as something that God does for us and as something that actually happens to us.  It is experiential in character and is described in this sermon in terms of our being “rescued” and “redeemed.”[9]  Had it not been for the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all and its efficiency for the church, we would still be in our sins.  Once the sinner trusts in Christ’s finished work on Calvary, he experiences God’s gracious salvation.  Because election and predestination[10] are not experiential in nature, it is not these that bring the sinner into possession of the benefits of the redemption purchased by Christ; it is the requirement that God has for faith in Christ that does it.  DML-J believes that it was the “precious blood” of Christ that purchased redemption for the world, but it does not become the possession of the elect automatically.  The salvific benefits of Christ’s blood have to be applied by the Holy Spirit and appropriated by the sinner by faith, which is the conduit for receiving it. 

Given that the vast majority of DML-J material on the atonement points in the universalistic direction, this very rare statement in fact proves the thesis I am presenting, and is the exception that proves the rule.  

Dr Alan C. Clifford, who knew the Doctor quite well for no less than eighteen years, explained why he thought DML-J used this uncharacteristic language (“He died for nobody else.”) in his exposition of Eph.5:25 which was delivered in 1959/1960.  At this time the high orthodox Banner of Truth Trust was just being set up, and DML-J was most keen to avoid any rifts with this new Reformed movement.  In an email to me, Clifford suspects that such caution drove him at this juncture.  “Whatever he published on paper, it remains true that he was 'uncomfortable' with LA [limited atonement]. In short, he didn't really believe it.[11]

So, the two passages alleged by J. J. Murray and I. H. Murray to support the view that DML-J believed and preached limited atonement have been found to prove nothing of the sort.  Taken out of context, it could be argued that this is what he believes and teaches.  But kept firmly within the context of his preaching and of these sermons, it has been shown that there was a breadth and width in DML-J’s soteriology that neither of these men would embrace.  Hence, it is pushing language much too far to claim that they and DML-J are on the same side of this controversy.

---

[1]    Eph.5:22-6:9.

[2]    Selection #107.

[3]    1974:145.

[4]    The meeting was held in Belfast, Northern Ireland in the early 1990s.

[5]    Ibid.

[6]    1974:145, 146.

[7]    Dr Alan C. Clifford in an email dated 17 August 2013.

[8]    Ex.5:18.

[9]    1974:146.

[10]  These undergird and guarantee the success of the Gospel in the world.

[11]  Clifford, dated 27^th July 2013.

Dr D Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Rom.5:15

In March 2012, I had a conversation with Rev. John J. Murray, for sometime an editor with the Banner of Truth Trust in London and in Edinburgh.  The occasion was the thirty-first anniversary conference to mark the death of Rev. Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones at which Rev. Murray delivered two of the papers.  In the course of his address, Mr Murray said that “Dr Lloyd-Jones believed in limited atonement.”  Afterwards, I quizzed him about this assertion and asked for the grounds on which he had made it.  He assured me that he taught this doctrine in his exposition of Rom.5:15.  I was slightly taken aback by this because everything I had read of the Doctor’s did not give me any reason to think that this was his belief and was what he preached.  On the contrary, his position was very much closer to universal atonement than it was to definite atonement as even a cursory reading of his evangelistic sermons on Acts will demonstrate. 

A few days later, I was in the Evangelical Bookshop in Belfast and was discussing this issue with the manager, Mr John Greer.  He said he would ring Rev. Iain H. Murray and ask him about this question.  Mr Murray confirmed that the Doctor believed and preached limited atonement and this can be found in his sermons on Rom.5 and also in his sermons on Eph.5.  These he confirmed proved that the Doctor held limited atonement as the proper understanding of soteriology.

Having read carefully again the relevant sermons from these studies, my findings are as follows.  Despite at least 365 direct quotations from DML-J’s published sermons which teach directly and/or clearly imply universal atonement, this contrary viewpoint came as a surprise to me as one who has been studying the Lloyd-Jones corpus for more than forty years.  So what exactly did he say about Rom.5:15?

DML-J, in this published series, preached two sermons in the Romans series on Rom.5:15 at the Friday evening meeting at or about February/March 1958.  The first of these two sermons dealt with one aspect of the verse while the second found him zooming in on the second part of this text that had attracted some controversy and misunderstanding.  It concerns the meanings of “all” and “the many.”[1]  After affirming that “sheer literalism” makes “all” in this verse mean ‘every individual person in the world,’ he discounts this methodology as wrongheaded and “unintelligent.”[2]  He proceeds to demonstrate that

‘all’ and ‘the world’ and ‘many’ and so on, as used in Scripture, quite frequently do not mean every individual in the world ... they do not mean every single member of the human family.[3] 

Given that his message was leading up to a denial of stark universalism, it is easy to see why he adopted this approach.  He proceeds to give examples of how this is not the case, and refers to the text, “all the world should be taxed.”[4]  Clearly, he argues, this cannot mean that every single individual in the world.

Another example he gives is Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost in which he quotes from the prophet Joel.  God says that in the last days, He will pour out His Spirit upon all flesh...[5]  He dismisses as ridiculous the idea that this means everyone, including the ungodly.

DML-J rejects the “foolish literalism” that makes the meaning of “all” in Scripture inclusive of everyone,[6] for Scripture limits the meaning of this and similar terms by placing conditions on them.  In so doing, he is exposing and opposing universalism per se, the kind used by naked universalists.  He believes that only those who believe are justified,[7] in contradistinction to the new perspective on Paul teaching that is current at this time.[8]  DML-J is opposing the erroneous teaching of universal salvation, which he condemns without reservation.  The teaching that because Christ died for all, all will finally be saved is both false and foolish.  The falsehood contained in this teaching has only to be stated to be recognised for what it is, and its foolishness goes against the observable facts, and no time will be wasted in refuting these errors.  

However, it is critically important to indicate that DML-J is not opposing universal atonement.  His criticism is of universalism not hypothetical universalism, not Amyraldianism, or authentic Calvinism.  His condemnation is of those who purport to teach on biblical grounds that “all” will be saved eventually by God’s love. 

It is also important at this juncture to point out that DML-J clearly does not teach one thing in his sermons on Acts and something different in his sermons on Romans.  In fact, limited atonement is not even mentioned in these published sermons on Rom.5:15, nor indeed is it taught as a theory of the atonement that he espoused in any of his sermons now in print.  It is unfortunate that no audio digital recording of his two sermons on Rom.5:15 is available on the MLJ website,[9] despite the fact that his audio sermons on Rom.5:12 is followed immediately by his sermon on Rom.5:16, 17.  As stated earlier, during Dr R. T. Kendall’s Doctoral work at Oxford University, frequent discussions were held between the two men on this subject.  During one such discussion with Kendall, DML-J, referring to the doctrine of limited atonement, confessed, “I never preached it, you know … only once on Rom.5:15 and I was in great difficulty when I did so.” 

No record exists as to when this might have been done, but such a theory does not appear in his published expositions of Rom.5:15. What probably has happened is that while he might have said he believed this doctrine during his preaching on Rom.5:15, when the Romans 5 book, Assurance, was eventually published, this reference was redacted from the printed sermon.  Having checked the audio of this sermon, this can be ruled out as a possible explanation for the alleged omission.  Or, what is also equally likely, he had preached on this verse on another occasion and at a different venue, and experienced the difficulty referred to in his conversation with Kendall.  Further, if DML-J did preach on or refer to limited atonement during his sermons on Rom.5:15, he may well have asked that the recording be destroyed so as not to give the wrong impression of his theology, and I admit that this is pure speculation on my part. 

Whatever the precise explanation for its non-appearance in his published sermons on Rom.5:15, or in the MLJ archive containing his 1,600 recorded sermons, the Doctor admitted that he was quite ill at ease when he tried to preach limited atonement from that or, by extension, from any other verse of Scripture.  Whatever he might have said in private, this emphasis does not appear in his published sermons that were edited by him or by his widow and daughters after his death.

DML-J criticises a wrong understanding of what Paul was writing in this letter.  Asking the following three rhetorical questions about what this actually means,

If it does not mean universal salvation, does it mean that what the Apostle is teaching here is that the opportunity or the possibility of justification is to be offered to all?  Is he saying that in Jesus Christ there is the chance or the opportunity for all to justify themselves if they believe and accept the message?  Is it the possibility for all, if it is not a fact concerning all?[10]

he comes out very clearly on what he thinks Paul means.  He is emphasising the certainty of salvation for believers, not its mere possibility.  However, salvation is possible for unbelievers, on condition they trust in Christ alone.  His emphasis is not on the atonement as such, but on Christian assurance of salvation.  The book of sermons in which these studies are published was given the title Assurance.  In fact, he uses the term “justify themselves” if they believe and accept the Gospel message.  No man can justify himself by the works of the law[11] – Paul’s way of describing how sinners engage in self-salvation by human efforts of whatever kind, however spiritual these efforts might appear.  He is clear, however, that the benefits of the redemption purchased by Christ can only be received by faith in Christ alone; but it is not faith per se that justifies, but God.[12]  So, like Calvin, faith unlocks the soteriology of DML-J.

How, then, does DML-J interpret the terms “all” and “the many”?  His general answer is typical – we must “allow Scripture to speak for itself.”[13]  He is at pains not to introduce philosophy, given the natural tendency among humans to do just that.  His explanation is that Paul is contrasting the “all” who are in Adam with the “all” who are in Christ.  Paul’s interest is not in numerics, but in fundamental principles.[14]  Fallen mankind is by nature connected with Adam, and we all died in Adam; but by grace all believers are in Christ and they live in Him – all of them.  Paul is speaking here about salvation, not universal salvation, so he marshals his arguments to teach that salvation is certain for all who are in Christ, those who know God’s ongoing forgiveness, as Calvin teaches.  Moreover, Calvin’s understanding of this verse very evidently steers away from a literalist interpretation by saying in his commentary on Hebrews:

To bear, or, take away sins, is to free from guilt by his satisfaction those who have sinned. He says the sins of many, that is, of all, as in Romans 5:15. It is yet certain that all receive no benefit from the death of Christ; but this happens, because their unbelief prevents them.[15]

The editor of Calvin’s commentary on Hebrews adds, “It is the character of the Apostle’s style to change his words, while the same idea is often intended,” a case in point being where he avers that “many” means “all.”

In his Romans commentary, Calvin writes

Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all men, yet not all receive Him.[16]

The editor of Calvin’s commentary on Romans adds, “It appears from this sentence that Calvin held general redemption.” 

A cautionary note is sounded by DML-J to the effect that

we must never proceed to draw deductions beyond what is stated in Scripture. ... All we can do is to read the Scriptures and observe what they teach, and submit ourselves entirely to that.[17] 

He then quotes Deut.29:29 and leaves purely technical considerations with the God of all wisdom.  “That is as far as we can go, and are meant to go,” he concludes.

So the natural meaning of Scripture was his guide in all branches of theology, and this was so visibly demonstrated in his sermon on Rom.5:15.

---

[1]    Assurance, 1971:240-252.

[2]    Ibid., 241.

[3]    Ibid.

[4]    Lk 2:1.

[5]    Acts 2:18 quoting Joel 2:28. Assurance, 1971:242.

[6]    Ibid., 1971:243.

[7]    Ibid., 1971:244.

[8]    Prof. N. T. Wright claims that Paul teaches that we are justified by belonging (to the church) and

        not by believing the Gospel. 

[9]    The website is at www.mljtrust.org and was accessed on 15^th August 2013.

[10]   Romans, 1974:246 (rprt).

[11]   Rom.3:27; Gal.2:16.

[12]    Ibid., 247.

[13]    Ibid.

[14]    Ibid.

[15]    Calvin, Comm. Heb.9:28.  Emphasis his.

[16]    Calvin, Comm. Rom.5:15.

[17]    Ibid., 250.

FANNY JONES

Fanny Jones (1805-77) was the equally-amazing wife of the amazing Welsh preacher, John Jones, Talsarn (1796-1857).

'As Welsh people we are under a great debt to this woman, ...we can never measure the work she did in being an instrument to give ‘the People’s Preacher’ to the people...In her self denial, Wales heard a message from Heaven - her efforts facilitated the way for Wales to be drenched by the irresistible eloquence of the ‘hero from Talysarn’ (O. Llew. Owain of Talysarn, Cofiant Mrs Fanny Jones, tr. Marian G. Clifford).

Fanny's story is not only touchingly-inspirational. She remains a challenge to women of all ages and eras. She is also a Christian rebuke to modern feminist ideas of womanhood. She would even have taught Margaret Thatcher a few things! Between them, John & Fanny Jones provide wonderful role models. They are a glorious antidote to apostate institutional religion and the bankrupt warring political factions of our secular times.

As the attached extract (from an ongoing project on her life*) shows, Fanny Jones helps us to live life and also to face death. 

There's much more about her to come...  WATCH THIS SPACE!

Yours faithfully,

Dr Alan C. Clifford

* included in a forthcoming biography on her husband.

The Easter Rising

On this day that some branches of Christendom call Easter Sunday, it is so great to remember the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, and Saviour of the world.  To think that apart from His sin-bearing love for the world, we’d all be lost and undone. 

And when I think that God, his Son not sparing,
Sent him to die, I scarce can take it in,
That on the cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin.

When Jesus died on Calvary, it wasn’t for any sin of His own, but for my sin, my vileness, my rebellion.  He died to take it away, which is what the Lamb of God came to do (Jn.1:29).  It is utterly amazing.  Charles Wesley got the import of what God did in Christ when he wrote “’Tis mystery all! The immortal dies, Who can explore His strange design.”  What an unusual way to redeem mankind!  How can the immortal die?  It baffles our understanding.  The eternal Son of God compressed into a human body, and then taking the full rigour of the law against us as God’s wrath was poured out on Him.  Why?  He did it for you and for me.  And He did it because He loved us.

That’s why we celebrate the resurrection of Christ every Sunday – resurrection day.  We meet to worship the resurrected Lord every Sunday.  This is the Lord’s Day.  And we rejoice in it. 

We also rejoice because given our mortality, when Christ died, death died with Him.  For believers death is dead.  Now that’s something to shout about, is it not?  Death has been defeated once and for all.  There is no fear in death because Christ conquered death.  And His victorious resurrection on the third day confirms that fact.  Death is defeated.  Death is dead. 

For the Christian, death is little more than the doorway through which we pass to get into His nearer presence.  But for the unbeliever, death is still the “king of terrors” (Job 18:14).  Even believers do not look forward to meeting this king, despite knowing that he has no hold on them.  But it is still not something we welcome, whenever and however it comes.  If it holds some fear for Christians, what must it not be for unbelievers?  It is “the king of terrors;” and as one old preacher added, “The terror of kings.”  Death frightens everybody, however high or however low they might be.  We have only ever met it second hand (in someone else’s death), but one day we will meet it personally.  For the believer it will be like meeting a chained animal, able to go so far but no further; for the non-Christian, he will meet it head on and be everlastingly destroyed by it.  It will not be a pretty experience.

But the Gospel brings us this tremendous assurance that death has died in the death of Christ.  It also assures us that when Christ was raised from death by the power of God, He signalled the final and eternal defeat of this last enemy, death. 

Therefore we celebrate what God has done for us in Christ.  It brings a “joy inexpressible and full of glory” into our hearts (1 Pet.1:8).  It fills our hearts with the deepest gratitude to God for “so great a salvation,” (Heb.2:3).  To think that the Lord Whom we have offended so deeply by our sin has found a way to forgive us and accept us as His children is utterly amazing.  To realise that when God looks at us, He sees us as clothed in Christ’s perfect righteousness, not as we are in our sins.  To recognise that God has found a perfect way to pardon us and still remain just and holy is mind-blowing.

I think the trouble with many of us is that we are far too familiar with the Gospel record that we miss the sheer thrill of what was done for us in and by Christ.  We need to sit down and allow these facts to sink in.  They are astounding.  We have lost the enormity of what God has done for us in Christ.  And our prayers reveal it!  We can thank God in mere words only, and no heart.  I think we need to discover how to utterly abandon ourselves to this Christ Who has done such astonishing things for such worms of the earth.  Only when we have abandoned ourselves to Christ will we see “what it meant for Him the holy One to bear away my sin.”

Perhaps, these few rambling thoughts will help us do that.  May it be so.

Margaret has had a good week, all things considered.  Her back pain is still quite acute and if this was healed, she’d be in very good form.  Her love for the Christ of the Gospel is deepening by the day, and how she loves to hear it preached with clarity and passion.  And how angry she becomes when such a glorious message is delivered in a lifeless way.  She shares Puritan Richard Baxter’s complaint of ‘the living word of the living God being preached by dead preachers to dead congregations.’  It is obscene, and both of us share that.

To hear her sing the old Gospel hymns in praise to the Lord is heart-warming.  And her concern for those known to her that are still dead in their sin is obvious.

You know, there is surely no better comfort when facing cancer than not just to know a few things about Christ or to have made a decision at sometime in the past, but to know Him experientially, know Him in the heart, and be assured of our sonship of God.  Knowing Him is much more than knowing about Him.  It is an intimate relationship with Christ that is spoken about, a relationship that is productive and deeply satisfying.  Margaret knows Christ in this way.  Do you?  What better comfort can anyone have than such knowledge!  

Was Lloyd-Jones an Amyraldian?

This post focuses on the preaching ministry of one of British evangelicalism’s greatest twentieth century preachers, Dr David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981).  It is conducted on the understanding that his commitment to the historic reformed faith is not being questioned, which means that he embraces the biblical doctrines of election and predestination.  Most Christians in the West know of the Doctor’s reformed credentials, and he is accepted as a bona fide reformed minister.  Indeed, he designates his position as “conservative evangelical. 

This post refines its focus to what is not as well known of his theological position, yet is a position that is evident in all his published evangelistic sermons.  DML-J[1] self-designates as a man of prayer and an evangelist.  Evangelism played a major role in his fifty-four years of preaching ministry.  Assumptions have been made as to the particular theology that he held, but these assumptions do not appear to be well grounded.  That DML-J believed and preached the doctrines surrounding the divine sovereignty is all things, especially in salvation, is beyond question.  Salvation is of the Lord, he teaches frequently.  He stresses the divine initiative in salvation, and directs the attention of his hearers to Christ and to Christ alone.

What is less well known of DML-J’s theology is what he believed about salvation, or as the theologians describe it, soteriology.  His soteriology is mis-understood and at times mis-represented by those who claim his as their mentor and they as his disciples.  This  mis-understanding takes the shape of a high Calvinist position in which, because he believes in the divine sovereignty in salvation, he inevitably believed in ‘limited atonement,’ as perceived by the high orthodox.  

DML-J believed that the atonement was limited in its saving effectiveness to those who believe the Gospel and trust Christ as Lord and Saviour, the elect.  In parallel with this clearly revealed Scriptural doctrine he also believed that, as revealed in Scripture, there is a universal aspect to the atonement which means that the Gospel may, indeed must, be preached to all men everywhere in the assurance that there is saving blessings to be had to any and to all who turn from their sins and trust the Saviour.  It is effective for these because it is offered to all men everywhere.  The design of God in the atonement was to make salvation available to the human race, a salvation that is sufficient to save all of humanity, and simultaneously to make that same salvation effective in the lives of those who trust Christ alone.  Provision has been made for the reconciliation of the whole world, and out of that world the elect will infallibly be saved.

As one who has been an avid reader and student of DML-J for some forty years, I have grown in my admiration for the man and his message.  This brings its own challenges because the author must be aware of personal bias in favour of the subject under discussion.  Of course, this is not a biography of DML-J, so the dangers of this happening are lessened and the temptation to write a hagiography are reduced; however, given the subject matter of this study and the author’s commitment to the biblical Gospel, the opposite danger of denigration is thereby omitted.  So an attempt will be made to present an objective a view as possible of the subject of this work.

---

[1]   Throughout this book, the abbreviation, DML-J, will be used for convenience when referring to Dr

    D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

AMYRALDIAN ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE 2013

  Norwich Reformed Church

A REFUGE FOR THE GUILTY RACE*

Amyraldian Features in Welsh Calvinism

AMYRALDIAN ASSOCIATION

Affirming Calvin’s Authentic Biblical Christianity

NINTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE

Attleborough Baptist Church

Norfolk

11-12 APRIL 2013

*derived from words by William Williams, Pantycelyn

THE THINKING BEHIND THE THEME

Building on the discoveries of previous conferences, we extend our investigations to Wales, this year being the tercentenary of the birth of the eminent Calvinistic Methodist preacher Daniel Rowland (1713-90). At its most basic, our conference seeks to highlight the theme shared by this year’s Banner of Truth Ministers’ Conference: ‘The Gospel: What it is and Why it matters’. However, despite our appeal to Banner publications, most brethren at Leicester are unlikely to share our stance. Since the Bible makes it clear that the Gospel of Christ has a global reach (Matt. 28: 19; Mk. 16: 15; Jn.3: 16), no member of the human race is to be denied the message of mercy, even though many reject it. True, only a portion of humanity will be saved—God’s elect. It is equally true that the provision and offer of pardon are universal. Otherwise there is no ‘Good News for every creature’. Hence our Saviour’s atoning death has a ‘double reference’: to all mankind in general and to the believing elect in particular. This ‘duality’ is basic to the Amyraldian view of the Gospel.  

WHAT ARE ‘AMYRALDIAN FEATURES’?

During his heresy trial at the National Synod of Alençon (1637), Moïse Amyraut declared that ‘Jesus Christ died for all men sufficiently, but for the elect only effectually: and that consequentially his intention was to die for all men in respect of the sufficiency of his satisfaction, but for the elect only in respect of its quickening and saving virtue and efficacy; which is to say, that Christ’s will was that the sacrifice of his cross should be of an infinite price and value, and most abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world; yet nevertheless the efficacy of his death appertains only unto the elect;...for this was the most free counsel and gracious purpose both of God the Father, in giving his Son for the salvation of mankind, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, in suffering the pains of death, that the efficacy thereof should particularly belong unto all the elect, and to them only…’ (John Quick, Synodicon in Gallia Reformata, 1692, ii. 354).

It is our conviction that, contrary to ‘received wisdom’, these ‘Amyraldian features’ were present in Welsh Calvinism, especially among the Calvinistic Methodists. The distinguished author Dr Eifion Evans helps set the scene for us. The North Wales Methodist leader, Thomas Jones of Denbigh’s ‘great contribution lay in steering the Methodism of the [19th] century safely between the rocks of Arminianism and High Calvinism...both Thomas Jones and Thomas Charles [Bala] were following in the tradition of Rowland and Williams’ (Daniel Rowland and the Great Evangelical Awakening in Wales, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985, 339).

‘High Calvinism’ is properly defined as the theology of Theodore Beza, the Westminster Confession and John Owen, as distinct from the original teaching of John Calvin which Amyraut claimed to reaffirm as ‘authentic Calvinism’. Losing Calvin’s biblical balance, ‘High Calvinism’ was the prelude to the antinomian hypercalvinism which blighted Wales for a while, as it did England and elsewhere. In short, the Owenite ‘limited atonement’ teaching created evangelistic and pastoral havoc, as it still does.

This year’s conference examines the theological, devotional and practical significance of the following summary:

The Methodist Fathers were never, at first, Hyper-Calvinists,...The doctrine that was undoubtedly believed among them was that of the Articles of the Established Church, and in agreement with these they preached Jesus Christ as a sufficient Saviour for the whole world, inviting all to him. One need only read the journal of Howell Harris, the sermons of Daniel Rowland, and the hymns of William Williams, to see that they laid down no limits to the value of the Saviour's sacrifice. But just as one extreme always produces the opposite, many of the Calvinists, in the warmth of their zeal against the Wesleyans, claimed that there was no universal aspect to the call of the gospel; that the elect alone were to be called… 

John Morgan Jones & William Morgan, tr. John Aaron, The Calvinistic Methodist Fathers of Wales (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2008), ii. 605.                   (ACC)

John Jones - Reformed Pastor par excellence

Dr Alan C. Clifford wrote this excellent piece:

Although John Jones had been preaching for several years, and had become famous throughout Wales and beyond, he had not received full ordination at this time. However, this occurred in the Bala Association in June 1829, when five others were ordained with him. At the close of the ordination service, John Elias delivered the charge. In the same Association, in the evening of the last day, John Jones preached on the words, ‘The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the mul titude of isles be glad thereof. Clouds and darkness are round about Him; righteousness and judgment are the habitation of His throne’ (Psalm 97: 1-2). He was aware of the deep and solemn importance of ordination to the full calling of the Christian ministry. ‘His own sensitive spirit was deeply moved’, wrote Owen Jones, ‘and his sermon that night was delivered with great power. The Revd John Hughes, Wrexham, preached after him. In speaking of the event, Mr Hughes said, “It would have been disheartening even for John Elias to rise up after him”’.

Ever since the first ordinations of 1811, the Calvinistic Methodists were aware of the high privileges and responsibilities of an ordained  ministry. Freed at last from the shackles of Anglicanism, they were able to develop, establish and express a truly Reformed view of the Church. From a Continental perspective, the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists were truly ‘The Reformed Churches of Wales’, later known as the Presbyterians of Wales - without denying that other branches of Welsh Nonconformity share some characteristics of Reformed churchmanship. The Confession of 1823 outlined the ethos and duties of the people of God, which John Jones and his brethren promised solemnly to uphold, teach and maintain: 

Christ the head of the church, has instituted ordinances, means of grace, and an order of worship, to be used in the church by all his people, - in private, in the family, and in the congregation. Through these ordinances, God gives grace, and nourishes and increases the grace given. They are the ordinances of preaching, reading and hearing the word, prayer, praise, mutual instruction, conversation [cydymddyddan], the exercise of every part of church discipline, and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Whatever biblical reservations John Jones entertained about the ‘Owenite’ features of Article 18 ‘Of Redemption’, he was fully committed to Article 37.  In his high views of the sacraments, he was neither Baptist nor Anglican. Furthermore, ‘he was anxious to keep these high in the estimation of the people’.

Regarding baptism, John Jones’s own family experience - as a son of godly parents and now a father of a growing family - was a constant reminder of God’s covenant mercies. Owen Jones creates a beautiful picture of John Jones’s understanding of the ordinance of covenant baptism:

And whenever the Sacrament of Baptism or of the Lord’s Supper was administered by him, he always performed the duty with the solemnity that was due to the occasion. In the case of the Sacrament of Baptism, he would deliver an appropriate address upon the duties which parents owe to their children, upon the profession of Christ made through baptism, the importance of bringing up the young in the church; at other times he would speak of the meaning of the Sacrament, and of the great change that was signified by it. Some of these addresses were very thrilling, and his prayers were always fervent for the blessing of God upon the parents and the children.

Owen Jones’s account of John Jones’s celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a narrative of exquisite rapture, and deserves to be quoted in full:

His administration of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was more impressive still. This is done in Wales generally at the close of the service. After prayer and consecration the minister goes round the members with the bread and wine; and while doing so he speaks words appropriate to the occasion. Mr John Jones always took some special point in connection with the death of Christ: His love, His humiliation, His self-denial and obedience to the will of God; the sufficiency of His sacrifice, the cleansing through His blood, &c.; and he dwelt upon it, and expressed his thoughts until gradually he became warmed by the subject; his ideas flowed as from a fountain; his mind was thrilled; those emotions passed from him to the congregation; the people became absorbed in the same great subject; and they forgot themselves at last, and seemed lost in a sea of gladness and Divine joy. We have heard it said that his addresses at the Communion table were at times so fervent, so glowing, so heavenly, that the people could hardly venture from a feeling of awe and reverence to take the elements from his hand. 

A uniquely-glorious experience of such heavenly joy was felt when John Jones was preaching at the Tabernacle, Bangor one Lord’s Day evening in the early summer of 1835. Again, Owen Jones paints the wonderful picture:

The service commenced at six o’clock. The sermon was not over till half past eight. Nevertheless, the people were not tired; under the spell of his oratory time was forgotten. On this occasion there was a Communion service to be at the close. The sermon itself was impressive; and the congregation had been worked up to a high pitch of emotion. It was felt at the Communion table that the service went on with great ease. The preacher was in a most elevated mood, and grace was evidently being poured into his lips, and a live coal from the altar of the sanctuary had touched them; so that they glowed with peculiar eloquence that evening. The preacher had gone round the large chapel with the bread, and was now returning for the wine. He took the cups in his hands, and held them up with the wine in them, and with his sweet voice he said, “Do you see, my friends, how the wine begins to redden?” These words, with those beautiful notes of his, ran electrically through the multitude. The tears rushed to the eyes of many, as if to see what was the cause of such a shock, and they gave vent to their emotions in words; and probably there was not a man who did not feel that moment something creeping shudderingly over him. After a while there was perfect silence again, and he went on speaking upon the “precious blood of Christ.” The time had gone; no one thought of looking upon the clock. Their minds had been absorbed. It was after ten o’ clock when he commenced praying in order to close the meeting. He said, “Indeed, Lord, we would have praised Thee to-night, only that it has gone late. Blessed be God, because we have hopes of going into a country where there will be no record of time to disturb our worship; and because we can hope for the day when we shall never become tired of the house of God.” Before he had gone any farther, the feelings of the people became too warm again; and their voices drowned the voice of the preacher; and there they remained till it was eleven o’clock.

Such were the amazing labours of the Revd John Jones, Talsarn. For all the joys of heaven poured out in such abundance, his Lord’s day travels denied him any rest. He often had to preach in three places, many miles apart, each service concluding with the Lord’s Supper and sometimes a baptism. Clearly his ordination as a minister of the Gospel had a profound influence upon him. His biographer appropriately describes this period in the preacher’s career: ‘He consecrated his energies, his talents, and his genius more than ever to the great cause of Christ. And though his toil was incessant and his labours excessive, yet he was employed with the work he delighted to be in; and he enjoyed times of most thorough refreshing and happiness. His ministry advanced in power, and his popularity became greater still’.