Time Commitment To Sermon Preparation

One of the essential qualifications of expository preachers is surely toughness of hide to take the persistent criticism of not spending enough time with the congregation. His whole week seems to be taken up with study. But the preacher must be well-disciplined so that he can take such criticism graciously, and go on with the ministry to which God has called him. If Christians want good preaching, they must be prepared to give their minister time and freedom to study so that he can feed their hungry hearts. Only when the preacher himself receives from God can he give to his people. If he does not take the time to feed his own soul, he will have nothing worthwhile to give to others. If he does not labour to prepare a good meal for his guests on Sundays,he cannot complain if they have no appetite for what he has for them! A well-prepared dish is most appetising; but an ill prepared one, even though its all the necessary ingredients, will turn them off! Preachers must pay the price for their preaching. They must keep themselves fresh. 

Preparation for preaching is the most laborious thing the minister will do, therefore, it is so important that both people and pastor have a  right grasp of what preaching is all about. Only then will they be able to submit themselves to the rigorous demands of that preaching.

Do Theological Seminaries and Colleges Destroy Preaching?

Dr Henry Drummond thinks that seminaries are doing an inadequate job in the training of preachers because, firstly, teachers have so given themselves to the historico-critical method that it has suddenly undermined the authority of the Word of God. Preachers now do not have confidence in the Scriptures, therefore they do not believe that the unfolding of the Word of God is where the power of preaching really is. Secondly, the homiletical departments of seminaries and colleges have generally failed to emphasise expository preaching. Since Fosdick, life-situation preaching has been emphasised. The climate in many congregations today is such that it dictates a low priority of preaching, where preaching is not seen as significant in ministry at all. So often, Christians prefer to sit in judgment on the preaching, and even say such things as this: "if a man cannot say what he has to say in15-20 minutes, he shouldn't be a preacher." Today, preaching must be ultra-brief and go over us and hit our neighbour. This anti-preaching climate has a destructive effect on the preacher himself, for his very call is under question, his raison d’tre is challenged. And if such a climate tends to destroy the preacher, then the congregation has little or no chance of surviving. What many congregations want today is, not a preacher of the Word of God, but an office manager, (Ravenhill).

Preaching - The Major Issue In Ministry

Preaching must be THE issue for the minister. 

"The whole basis of our spiritual life and our church life is that we respond to what God has done. The essence of preaching is the proclamation of what God has done; therefore if we are to have experience with God, both individually and corporately, it is going to be the basis of responding to the knowledge of what God has done, which in one form or another, must come from proclamation. Preaching is, therefore, fundamental in the church life and therefore should have a high priority in the life of the pastor," Dr S. Briscoe. 

All of the spiritual life is simply a response to God, who has revealed Himself through His Word and through His messenger, the preacher.

Therefore proclamation is of vital importance and an essential ingredient in the worship of God. Praising God and preaching His Word are essential to true worship. Through God-owned preaching, sinners and saints alike meet with the living God. In the 

Word, believer's experience fellowship with their Lord and with each other. Take away the proclaimed Word, and little else remains. The Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God states,

Preaching of the Word, being the power of God unto salvation, and one of the greatest and most excellent works belonging to the ministry of the gospel, should be so performed, that the workman need not be ashamed, but may save himself, and those that hear him.

In the Presbyterian Church, the sermon is the climax of our church's worship services. 

Preaching Is Not A Profession.

"Preaching is not a profession; it is an obsession, and a passion. And if it isn't, a man should not preach," says Dr Leonard Ravenhill. It is the key to any church and to any pastorate. Where the preaching fails, all else fails; but where the preaching is raised to its proper place and priority in the mind of both minister and congregation, everything else is raised thereby. It is the central aspect of the church's life and mission. 

Minister's must never think of preaching as a mere adjunct,a duty that has to be performed, a part of their professional responsibility. It should be their very life, their obsession, their passion. To preach the Gospel should be the one thing they live to do above all else! He must burn to do it week in and week out. He must preach, or his heart will burst. Jeremiah speaks with deep feeling when he talks about God's Word in his heart like a burning fire, shut up in his bones, (Jer.20:9). He says that he is weary of holding it in, indeed he cannot! He must preach the Word, or burn up. His burning prophetic vocation compelled him to testify concerning covenant spirituality, despite all opposition from his beloved fellow countrymen, (R. K. Harrison, Jeremiah, Tyndale Press, 1973:113). Jeremiah did not regard himself as a professional prophet. To him, preaching was a categorical imperative. He must preach or die! His attempts not to do so merely wearied him out.

The true preacher knows that his work is an obsession and a passion; with Paul he can say, "Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel," (1Cor.9:16).

Institutional Maintenance

The 'firm's men' are not interested in truth or in the Gospel; all they are interested in is "institutional maintenance," to use the unforgettable term used by Dr Jonathan Lamb at a convention in July 2013 in Northern Ireland. This is all they know and this is all they do. And anyone who stands in the way of "institutional maintenance," is to be removed by whatever means, moral or otherwise.

Do such men care about preaching the Gospel with conviction and passion? Do they want to see sinners saved and brought into the Kingdom of God? No. Do they want to see their church live on for many years? Of course they do. Do they want anything else? Yes. They want to see the money flowing in, for it is from the hard-earned money of church members that they hold their well-paid jobs. What else do they want? They want the removal of all those, whoever they might be, from the church because they might make their church an endangered species.

But there whole aim to "institutional maintenance." How pathetic! Why maintain an institution that is no longer (to use civil service speak) "fit for purpose"? If the churches today are not preaching the everlasting Gospel of redeeming grace, they are surplus to requirements. They are promoting the eternal damnation of those who sit and listen to them speaking utter irrelevancies. God is offended by their very existence. Remember what He said to and about Israel in Amos' day? “I hate, I despise your feast days, And I do not savor your sacred assemblies. Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them, Nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings." (Amos 5:21, 22). That is serious talk, is it not? For the Almighty God to utter such damning words is fearful.

Yet for the institutional maintainers, this is what the LORD is saying. May He have mercy on us for our unfaithfulness to Him.

The Firm's Men.

Why is it that the 'firm's men' within the churches do not want to face up to the challenge of reforming the church to which they belong? One answer: their church is so perfect that it does not need further reformation, or reforming. A perfect church does not need to be brought into line with Christ and His will for His people, because such a church is already there.

One question to ask the 'firm's men' within your denomination is this: what must be done to conform our church to the likeness of Christ? What changes does she need to make? Are they fundamental changes, or are they peripheral? Does your church base its activities, beliefs and practices around your preferences, or are they biblically based? If they are biblically-based, why do so many other sound evangelicals believe and practice differently?

Is your church the kind of church that you could, with confidence, bring an unsaved friend along to and be sure he would hear the Gospel being preached by the preacher? Does your man preach the Gospel clearly and with passion? Can you sense that he is heart and soul committed to what he is telling you? Or is it just a lecture, a 'glorified bible study,' as Dr Lloyd-Jones describes such performances? When you listen to him praying, reading the Scripture and preaching, do you get a sense of God, an awareness that God is in the midst?

These are the questions that Christians within the churches need to ask their leadership and address with urgency. Too many professing Christians seem content to be part of a denomination that opposes and rejects the Gospel and that has a clear alliance with theological liberalism. They don't mind evangelicals and liberals cooperating and exchanging pulpits and sharing 'fellowship.' They, by their actions (or inactions) are sending out a very clear message that liberalism is not wrong, that it has an understanding of the Gospel that differs from theirs, but it is not that bad at all because we believe that if God wants a sinner saved, He will do it anyway. Now thank God that He is sovereign in salvation as in all other matters; but how wicked a thing it is to use this precious doctrine to excuse the error and falsehood of liberalism and also to excuse their refusal to deal with this evil and to remove it from their midst!

Do evangelicals in theologically corrupt denominations not realise that liberalism is as different from Christianity as Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism are from Christianity? Now here's the irony: evangelicals in these denominations would be up in arms if they were to join with these other world religions, but seem to be blissfully ignorant of the strange bed-fellows they are sharing with right now. To accept error as just another and different way of understanding the Scriptures is to damn countless souls in hell and to love what God hates.

"Follow No Divisive Course"

To the ordinary person, this sounds like very good counsel. Within Christian circles, we are to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," (Eph.4:3). We are to pursue "peace with all men,...." (Heb.12:14). The writers of these wise words knew full well that it is simply not possible to be in good terms with everyone because all do not hold to the historic Christian faith. So their own experiences and the experiences of fellow apostles and disciples of the Lord demonstrate that these words are not to be taken at their face value.

But some churches do just that! They counsel their ministers not to follow any divisive course. Now you know what that means in practice. They are never to take a decision that would tend to cause disharmony within the congregation even though the congregation is made up of the converted and the unconverted. They are to keep in with the unconverted members of the church, and do or say nothing that would cause them to be offended. As one former theological college principal told a young colleague, "Say what the people want you to say and do what they want you to do." This is what even the professedly purest reformed churches are doing in practice, the most theologically orthodox, the separatist churches.

When it comes to sacramental discipline, they are bound to accept as Christian members those covenant children and young people who are requesting church membership, provided their behaviour does not undermine their profession. The policy seems to be that if a potential church member's behaviour does not contradict their profession, the church presumes that they are regenerate, so admits them to full church membership. If it creates a mist on a mirror that is placed under its nostrils, and its parents are already members of the church, then baptise it - just to keep the peace. Whatever you do, do not ask about whether or not they are born again, or saved, or converted to Christ. Why? Because that is liable to cause division in the congregation.

But perhaps the worst manifestation of this is in the case where the Gospel is not preached with anything resembling clarity by the minister. Problems arise when the minister preaches a clear biblical Gospel. But problems ought to arise where the minister simply does not preach the Gospel clearly and biblically and to the consciences of the members. In fact, problems ought to be caused in any church that does not preach the Gospel. Elders have an awesome responsibility to God and to those who worship in the same church to ensure that the Gospel is preached with power and conviction, and that hearers are left in no doubt as to their spiritual condition and what God requires of them if they are to escape the wrath and curse of God due them for sin. How will they answer to the Lord when while on earth they knew the gospel is not being preached in their church, yet they took no decisive action to have this unacceptable situation rectified? Such elders have now come to accept that it is OK for the churches not to preach the everlasting Gospel. And what can be more divisive than a minister who does not preach the Gospel. What can be more spiritually dangerous than a man who claims and is accepted to be a Gospel minister in a 'Gospel' church refusing to preach the Gospel? That is massively divisive. But it is not deemed to be divisive because no one creates a stir about a non-Gospel preaching minister. And the church authorities are content to tolerate such a situation.

And all because their church requires of them not to follow a divisive course. What if Luther, who preached from the Bible as we are supposed to do, had have taken that approach to church life; would the reformation ever have taken place? Had Calvin been content to let things go on as they had done, would the reformation ever been organised? What if the Huguenots and Covenanters and Puritans had taken this advice and 'followed no divisive course,' where would the church have gone?

Ask yourself this: if every church member and elder was like me, how long would the Gospel survive in your church?

Church of Scotland's Moderatoress Laughs at Knox!

The Church of Scotland's Moderatoress, Mrs Lorna Hood, has taken a swipe at John Knox (1514-1572), the man attributed with having brought the Protestant reformation into the Church in Scotland.

Knox was a reformer by nature, and it was his Calvinistic convictions that drove him to seek the reformation of the church in Scotland.  Having studied in Geneva under Calvin (1509-1564), claiming that the academy there was "the most perfect school of Christ since the days of the apostles," he learned from Scripture the Presbyterian form of church government (not to be confused with what is being passed off as Presbyterian church government today), and brought his learning back to his native Scotland, successfully reforming the church of his day. He was quoted as referring to the "the monstrous regiment of women," the reference being directed primarily at Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth I.

Now, the church that he founded has a member of that "monstrous regiment" as Moderatoress, and she dismisses Knox's view on women in leadership with a smile. She knows he would not approve of this ecclesiastical move, but n entering the Assembly Hall she has to pass Knox's statue, and can see nothing but the funny irony of so doing.

Given the clear prohibitive teaching of Scripture on women's ordination to the Christian ministry, every church that blatantly defies biblical teaching and those who accept it have been swallowed up by theological liberalism. And in order to be swallowed up by theological liberalism, one has personally to swallow this religious lie. Sadly, many reformed evangelicals have done just that! And in accepting the rightness and legitimacy of liberalism as one interpretation of the Bible, they have quite easily moved on to embrace the Roman principle that "the church is always right." Luther was strongly advised to "Listen to the Church" just after he nailed his 95 theses to the chapel door at Wittenburg.

Any Christian who "listens to the church" and not to Scripture has already apostacised from the church of Jesus Christ because the has departed from God's Word to the church. Only apostate church's will defy God and ordain women and non-Christians to the Christian ministry. Only apostate churches will accept into church membership for life and on profession of faith without a mechanism to review such professions those whose faith proves to be false. And the wholesale acceptance of members on profession of faith results in non-Christians becoming ministers, and now in Scotland holds the position of Moderatoress. These are the churches that know better than the Lord of the Church who said that women are not to hold such office as elder - it is for men only.

But to get back to Hood and Knox, for anyone to speak well of Knox in the one breath and then to make him the subject of derisory humour is extremely serious. Where are the CoS's evangelicals? Why aren't they screaming from the rooftops at such irreverence? How can they remain within such a denomination, one that accepts the pagan religion called liberalism on a par with biblical truth? As J. Greshem Machen put it, Liberalism and Christianity are two very different religions. Yet in today's spineless and faithless churches, keeping in with the current fashion is more important that maintaining biblical truth. Spurgeon is right: those who marry today's fashion will be tomorrow's widow.

In Ireland. the CoS has a daughter church, namely, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI). Has the Church of Scotland embraced theological liberalism? So has PCI. Therefore, has the CoS preached soul-damning liberalism. So has PCI. Has the CoS embraced same sex marriage? So has PCI - in principle, for she has at least one elder who publicly supports same-sex marriage, yet he still holds his office. Has the CoS persecuted evangelical ministers? So has PCI, and is still doing so.

Yet evangelical church ministers and elders and members are prepared to defend their church to the death against any criticism to the contrary, and continue to support such a religious aberration with their last pound. They hold Knox and his like high, yet they tolerate those who deny Knox's theology and evangelistic zeal. May the Lord show us His mercy.

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.

THE BARTHOLOMEW LEGACY - Remembering the Martyrs

THE BARTHOLOMEW LEGACY

Remembering the Martyrs

But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.

(Galatians 4: 29)

Dr Alan C. Clifford

Introduction

No, this is not about Bartholomew’s maps, nor about Barts Hospital in London. Neither can we aim to provide a biblical character study about the Apostle Bartholomew. Indeed, nothing at all is said about him in the New Testament apart from listing him among the apostles. Yet, during the early twentieth century, his name was known outside the circles of cartographers, tourists and medics. 

One can imagine a scenario somewhere in the West of England in 1923, where a Sunday school teacher tried to introduce his or her pupils to the twelve apostles. On declaring that the Bible tells us absolutely nothing about Bartholomew, an observant lad interjected with “I saw Saint Bartholomew a few days ago!” “Oh where?” To which the lad replied to the startled teacher, “Saint Bartholomew came through with the Cheltenham Flyer express” [the GWR’s new prestige train]. Our young train-spotting scholar then added excitedly, “I got the number - 2915!” 

Yes, we know more about G. J. Churchward’s famous Great Western Railway 2-cylinder, 4-6-0 Saint Class steam locomotives than we know for sure about the ‘saint’ himself. (Incidentally, 2914 was Saint Augustine and 2917 was Saint Bernard, not to ignore that 2923, 2913, 2920 and 2927 were Saints George, Andrew, David and Patrick respectively). Sadly, the superstition of ‘patron saints’ survives long after the last of these engines were scrapped in 1953. For the record (with some thematic link to our subject), Saint class 2903 Lady of Lyons (built in 1907) is credited with an unconfirmed 120 mph on a trial run. (One wonders if the current rebuild of a Saint at the GWR centre at Didcot might lead to a challenge to Mallard’s 1938 world speed record for steam of 126 mph). Whether or not the actual ‘Lady of Lyons’ was a saint (unlike 2904 Lady Godiva), the city of Lyons is associated with early persecution of Christians (177 AD) and later martyrdoms of Huguenots (1553, 1572).  

Apart from legends about his mission to India and Armenia, and his eventual horrific martyrdom (it is said he was flayed alive before being beheaded, miraculous healing properties being later claimed for his skin, hence the link with medicine), nothing is known for sure about the Apostle Bartholomew. Not to forget that imperial Rome was sacked by Alaric the Goth on 24 August 410, the medieval Roman Church appointed this calendar day for the Festival of St Bartholomew. Ironically, it was the later persecuting activities of the Roman Catholic Church that associated St Bartholomew with a most appalling atrocity that bears his name.

TWO BLACK BARTHOLOMEWS

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, following the Protestant Reformation, two outrages were committed against good and faithful Christian people on 24 August. The first - in 1572 - was against French Huguenots (Reformed Christians, Calvinists), thousands of whom were butchered by Roman Catholics in Paris and beyond. This terrible event is known as the St Bartholomew Massacre. Queen Elizabeth I went white as she heard the news. 

 

The second - in 1662 - was against English Puritans or Nonconformists (Reformed Christians, Calvinists), when around 2,000 godly pastors were ejected from their churches by the then recently-restored Church of England. Queen Elizabeth’s church (in the hands of ‘secret Catholic’ King Charles II) repeated the intolerance of the Pope’s church. Both atrocities led to much suffering and injustice.

These two expressions of ‘politically-correct’ religious tyranny (Roman Catholic and Anglican) reveal the darker side of Christian history. In the long battle between the Light and darkness, it has always been ‘right forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne’. Yet, in His sovereign wisdom and providence, Almighty God uses such atrocities to promote His everlasting kingdom, as surely as the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son brought salvation to the world.  

THE FRENCH BARTHOLOMEW

First, the facts:

1. The spread of the Reformation in France saw numerous conversions among the nobility as well as the general population. Among John Calvin’s numerous correspondents was Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France.

2. After a decade of religious war (following the massacre of a Reformed congregation near Vassy by soldiers of the Catholic Duke of Guise), a peace-promoting marriage between the Protestant Henry of Navarre (the future Henry IV of France) and Margaret of Valois, sister of King Charles IX took place at Notre-Dame, Paris on 18 August 1572.

3. The Protestant aristocracy were invited for the occasion, including Admiral Coligny. Much admired by the young Charles IX, he proposed policies which advanced the interests of both the French monarchy and the French Reformed Church.

4. Jealous and fearful of this influence, the Duke of Guise and the queen mother Catherine de Medici hired an assassin to kill Coligny. An attempt while the Protestant leader was walking the streets of Paris failed, only leaving him wounded. Gravely concerned, Charles IX promised an investigation and punishment for the plotters.

5. The king’s sympathy created panic among the Catholics, who did all they could to counter Coligny’s influence. Catherine, the Duke and Henri de Anjou (later Henri III) managed - after prolonged psychological pressure - to persuade the feeble-minded monarch that Coligny was really a threat to royal power. On Saturday evening, 23 August, confused Charles lost his temper: “If you want to kill Coligny, I agree, but then kill all the other Huguenots, so that no one will be able to blame me on account of his death!”

6. At 3 am, the Duke and his men surprised and assassinated Admiral Coligny at his lodging. Mortally wounded, he was thrown from his window, his head being kicked on the ground by the Duke. All the other Protestant leaders were killed by the royal guard. Sadly, the young Henry of Navarre instantly professed to be a Catholic to avoid death. While returning to the Reformed party soon afterwards (his evangelical convictions yet doubtful), this was sadly a ‘conversion’ he repeated in later years to gain the crown of France. 

7. Urged on by priests and nuns, the Paris mob attacked Huguenots in their homes for three consecutive days. In the ensuing horror, it is estimated that at least ten thousand lost their lives in the city. The streets flowed with blood and dead bodies were thrown into the Seine. Urged on by Charles and Catherine, the atrocity spread to the provinces. The total number of victims is hard to estimate accurately - 30, 000 might be a conservative figure. It should be said that the Bishop of Lisieux forbad such killing in his diocese. But he was a rare exception.

Second, who were the guilty?

Charles IX surely. He was no match for all the intrigue surrounding him. Yet clearly overwhelmed with remorse, this weak individual suffered acutely. Two years later he died in agony, seeing blood everywhere. Refusing to see his mother at his death bed, he found a measure of comfort through his faithful Huguenot nurse. Catherine herself, a political schemer, had been married to an unfaithful Henri II. An Italian Catholic, and disciple of Machiavelli, she ruthlessly retained her influence. She hated Henri of Navarre and the Protestants, yet died unhappy and almost unnoticed in 1589. Providing the real dynamic behind the Bartholomew massacre, the Duke of Guise was a fanatical Catholic. His partner in the crime, Henri de Anjou, later Henri III, eventually turned against the Duke, having him assassinated at Blois in 1587. Then there’s the Paris mob. Hating their Protestant neighbours for their godly and prosperous life-style, they were stirred up by fanatical priests to kill and plunder. With all restraint gone, the basest human instincts took over.

The Roman Catholic hierarchy was the chief culprit in the atrocity. Always in favour of persecution, the Vatican viewed religious toleration as an unpardonable sin. Pope Pius V had written accordingly to King Charles IX in 1569:

Your majesty must consider as certain that this (namely the restoration of public order) will never take place, as long as the whole kingdom will not accept unanimously and keep faithfully the one and same Catholic religion. In order to reach that goal with God’s help, it is necessary that Your Majesty act without mercy against God’s enemies, his own rebellious subjects, and punish them with the rightful pains and torments stated by the law (cited in Jules M. Nicole, ‘Black Bartholomew’, Christian Graduate, December 1972 (25: 4), 111).

Although Pope Pius V had died by the time of the Bartholomew massacre, his successor Gregory XIII welcomed news of the event, ordering Te Deums to be sung in all the churches. He also had an infamous medal struck to commemorate the Church‘s triumph over ‘heresy’. 

Naturally, King Philip II of Spain rejoiced that Protestantism had been thus suppressed in France. His own scheme to humble Queen Elizabeth I and Protestant England found eventual fruition in the Spanish Armada of 1588, a scheme which, in the merciful providence of Almighty God, ended in ruin.

Not all Catholic princes rejoiced. The Emperor Maximilian II, Charles IX’s father-in-law expressed deep sorrow over the cruelty displayed. Even Charles’ wife, daughter of the emperor, the devoutly-Catholic Elizabeth of Austria pleaded tearfully with her husband that some Protestants who had taken refuge in her room might be spared. The liberal and tolerant Chancellor of France, Michel de l’Hospital was so overwhelmed with grief that he died shortly after the massacre.

Third, what effect did the massacre have on the Lord’s Reformed people in France?

Having observed that over many years the French Reformed churches had provided ‘a vast multitude of most zealous and faithful martyrs, far more in number and quality of sufferers for the Gospel, than in any one of the Reformed Christian nations in Europe’, the English Presbyterian historian of the Huguenots, John Quick (1636-1706) provides a judicious and moving assessment of the aftermath:

The churches after the Parisian massacre were at a stand. That deluge of Protestant blood, which was then shed had exhausted their best spirits. Multitudes were frighted out of their native land, ... and others were frighted out of their religion. In such a dreadful hurricane as that was, no wonder if some leaves, unripe fruit, and rotten withered branches fell to the earth, and were lost irrecoverably. However, a remnant escaped, and, which was no less than a miracle, generally the ministers, God reserving them to gather in another harvest. And the churches in many places revived. God staying the rough wind in the day of His east wind, and giving them a breathing time, a little reviving under their hard bondage (Synodicon in Gallia Reformata, 1692, i, p. lx).

John Quick goes on to outline the sad effects of Henri of Navarre’s ‘Paris is worth a mass’ apostasy by which he obtained the throne of France as Henri IV in 1593 . Yet never entirely forgetting his former Protestant friends, he granted them the tolerant provisions of the Edict of Nantes in April 1598. In the decades that followed, the Reformed churches of France flourished until further persecution descended on them during the reign of King Louis XIV. However, we may conclude that this history assures us beyond all doubt the truth of our Saviour’s words that, despite all the persecution of all the ages, ‘the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church’ (see Matt. 16: 18), the true Church of the Reformation and all who faithfully profess the pure truth of the everlasting Gospel.

THE ENGLISH BARTHOLOMEW

Following the end of the Cromwellian era, pent up resentment and revenge burst on the heads of the Puritans. Their attempts to complete the English Reformation proved a disappointment. The restoration of Church and Monarchy prompted appallingly brutal persecution. The regicides were arrested and disembowelled. The Act of Uniformity, coming into force on St Bartholomew’s Day, 24 August 1662, drove around two-thousand puritan clergy from their livings. Many were to experience imprisonment. The day was known as ‘Black Bartholomew’. Clearly the date was deliberately chosen, an intimidating reminder of the French Bartholomew massacre ninety years earlier. J. C. Ryle said of the Act of Uniformity:

Taking all things into consideration, a more impolitic and disgraceful deed never disfigured the annals of a Protestant Church. ... To show the spirit of the ruling party in the Church, they actually added to the number of apocryphal lessons in the Prayer Book calendar at this time. They made it a matter of congratulation among themselves that they had thrust out the Puritans, and got in Bel and the Dragon (‘Richard Baxter’ in Light from Old Times, 1890, 1902 rep. 316-7).

Led by Richard Baxter and others, the Presbyterians made up around two-thirds of this godly company. They were the ‘cheated party’. Being honourable monarchists and moderate revolutionaries did not shield them from the wrath of King and Bishop. They had the misfortune to trust the word of a King who had few of his father’s virtues but several of his vices. Having promised ‘liberty to tender consciences’ at Breda in 1660, Charles soon forgot such seeming magnanimity by the time he reached London. However, with the Restoration, the fruits of the Puritan Revolution were not entirely lost. The new monarchy was never to have the power of the old. The Star Chamber and the High Commission were never revived. Taxation was never again levied without parliamentary consent. 

If England was safe from anarchy, she was not secure from the relentless intrigue of the Roman Catholic Church. While Puritans suffered for nearly thirty years, England’s Protestantism remained threatened. However, even the Cavalier Parliament was too strongly Protestant for King Charles II whose sympathies for popery were known. Indeed, in 1670, the King entered into a treaty with Louis XIV of France to curb the aspirations of the Dutch Calvinist, William of Orange. 

Unknown to Charles’ protestant ministers, the secret clause of the shameful Treaty of Dover (1670) was signed by the Catholic members of the Cabal, Lords Arlington and Clifford. Louis hereby promised to supply Charles with French troops and money if, at an opportune time, Charles would declare himself a Roman Catholic. The article’s chilling words actually read: ‘The King of Great Britain being convinced of the truth of the Catholic Faith, is determined to declare himself a Catholic...as soon as the welfare of his realm will permit.’

CONCLUSION

If Englishmen had retreated from the anarchy and repression of the revolutionary era, they were not about to forget the danger of Romanism. Parliament maintained the necessity of a protestant church and a protestant monarchy. Roman Catholic influence in the persons of Charles II and James II - the sons of Henrietta Maria - was firmly checked. After the failure of the ill-fated Monmouth rebellion of 1685, it was the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688 that finally ensured a protestant constitution and succession when William and Mary ascended the throne. Constitutional monarchy thus replaced Stuart absolutism. Protestant safeguards were enshrined in the Bill of Rights (1689) and later in the Act of Settlement (1701). With the passing of the Toleration Act (1689), persecuted Nonconformists became legally-worshipping Protestant Dissenters. 

With the aid of Huguenot regiments formed from refugees driven out of France at the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), William of Orange finally rescued this country from the popish menace when he defeated James II at the battle of the Boyne in 1690. During the eighteenth century, England’s Protestantism was reinforced by the Methodist Revival. Until the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 and the restoration of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England and Wales in 1850 (after which Cardinal Manning effectively declared war on protestant England), one may say that the zealous Protestantism of Puritan England continued to exert its liberating power.

Three centuries later, in an age of ecumenical and multi-faith apostasy, we must ensure by God's grace that the essential protestant legacy of the puritan period is maintained. We dare not imagine that the Church of Rome has changed: as surely as she meddled in British politics in the seventeenth century, so she is active in the heart of Europe today.  In view of the UK visit of Pope Benedict XVI in 2010, we cannot deny that these dark forces are still at work. Let us never forget the significance of 24 August. May all who name Christ as Lord and Saviour (and others who value religious liberty) be careful to honour His godly servants of the Reformation era, determined still to ‘contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3).

POSTSCRIPT

Dr Edmund Calamy (1671-1732) published An Abridgement of Mr Baxter’s History of His Life and Times with An account of the Ministers...who were Ejected after the Restoration of King Charles II (1702). Integral with his ministry, Calamy clearly felt called of God to transmit the heroic faith of Baxter and his brethren: “To let the Memory of these Men Dye is injurious to Posterity”. His Abridgement involved great courage, and it provoked a storm. At a time of continuing Anglican-inspired hostility to the heirs of the Puritans, this inspiring material marked out Edmund Calamy as ‘the Champion of Nonconformity’.

Apart from modest attention from nonconformist scholars, Dr Calamy is a largely unsung hero of a depressing period in English church history. While he never had the impact of his hero Richard Baxter (and how many could claim that until George Whitefield appeared in 1735?), Calamy shared most of Baxter’s convictions, a good deal of his piety and an equally-strong pastoral and evangelistic commitment. In addition, besides documenting the sacrifice of the ejected ministers of 1662, he perhaps more than any other preacher and theologian transmitted Baxter’s wonderful legacy to the eighteenth century and beyond. 

I'm No Second Fiddle!

John Jones Talsarn, the people's preacher of Wales in the eighteenth century, was a burning evangelist who provoked the ire of his more senior ministerial colleagues.  In a letter to a friend, he spoke about his concerns for the Gospel.  One of these was the emphasis on particular redemption, or limited Atonement, that the older men were preaching, and his second main concern, which he thinks is even more important than the first, was the desire in both parties to “love to have the pre-eminence.”[1]  In his opinion, there was a drive to occupy thrones, to be supreme, to be superior.  There is the practice of ministers gathering around them “yes” men who agree with every opinion expressed by the leader and who bow to their every demand.  This ties in well with what Jones wrote about the content of preaching by these older men.  If the preaching and message is sectarian, that is because those who do it are essentially sectarian in their outlook.  And sectarianism pursues its own paths in order to get what it wants, by whatever means and at whatever cost.  They wanted to remove those brethren who were being used by God because they did not dot their every ‘i’ and cross their every ‘t’ theologically.  

Today within the churches this same anti-christian attitude is to be seen, even in evangelical churches.  Ministers love to have the pre-eminence; they love then position and the power that attaches itself to position. Give them a title and they think they are God on earth. They will do whatever is necessary to get to the top, no matter who is trampled on in then process.

John wrote about such a man in his letters in 3 John 1:9. Diotrephes loved to have the pre-eminence and would not receive the apostle John.  This man was much too full of his own self-importance to be of any good tho the Gospel. Such men are a hindrance to the Gospel, but they are the men who are the best servants of the lukewarm 21st century church!

Yes, they are too many throne occupiers, too many kings, too many gigantic egos. How they love to be loved. How they gather around them those who will tell them how great they are. And they imagine, vainly, that by allowing the church to make its own godless decisions and abiding by them, that they are serving the church faithfully  for they are not.

Isn't it amazing just how far the church has plummeted into unfaithfulness and even apostacy!  Where are the men who see what is happening and are courageous enough to do something about it? Where are the Luthers and Calvins and Hus's?  Where are the men in whom the Spirit of God is? Where are the men who have compassion upon the church in her terminal illness? Sadly, they are few and far between, are they not? So long as they get their day out of it, they could not care less about what they are leaving for the next and future generations.

May the Lord have mercy upon us all.

---

[1]   Cited in Owen Thomas, The Atonement Controversy, Banner of Truth Trust, 1874/2002:352.

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.