Creeds and Confessions

What, then, of creeds and confessions? As to form, they bind only those who voluntarily profess or subscribe them. As to content, “they bind only so far as they affirm what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach.”[1] Where they depart in any respect from Scripture, we must follow Scripture and suspend our allegiance to that subordinate standard or to that ‘errant’ section within it. In other words, we follow a man or a confessional document only insofar as they unambiguously follow Christ speaking in the Scriptures. DML-J encouraged Christians to do their own thinking and to work things out for themselves. “We must not swallow automatically everything we read in books, even from the greatest men. We must examine everything.”[2]

This raises then interesting point that has bedevilled many churches over the centuries and that it its mere possession of theologically orthodox confessional statements. While the Doctor referred to these as mere “paper confessions” which found no reflection in what the churches were actually preaching, he had little time for them. Dr Harry Uprichard, a staunch Westminster Confession theologian, wrote, “Mere possession of a confessional basis does not ensure that a Christian body is characterised by the preaching of the Word. It must actively preach the same.”[3] If the Gospel is not being preached in churches where confessional correctness is demanded, then possession of such a confession becomes a liability and a hindrance to true Gospel preaching. It becomes purely academic whether or not the confession is biblical. Macleod who is also an avid Westminster theologian, contends that “it is not the official teaching of any given church that determines its soundness or otherwise, but its actual preaching.”[4] Churches would be better served if they altered their confessions to reflect what is actually being preached in their churches instead of maintaining their confessions and pretending that all its ministers preach according to its dogmas. Machen is right on the money here when he describes such inexcusable anomalies in terms of dishonesty.

According to Reformed theologian, Prof. John M. Frame, churches ought to be free to alter their confessions, and allow elders, whether teaching or ruling, to dissent from their confession of faith within some limits. This safeguards the position of supremacy for Scripture, and removes the possibility of Confessions becoming, not merely on a par with Scripture, but in actual practice, superior to Scripture in authority.  He writes

Confessions are not Scripture, and they should not be treated as infallible or as ultimately normative. Indeed, I believe it is important that in a church fellowship it be possible to revise the creeds, and for that purpose, it must also be possible for members and officers to dissent from the creed within some limits. Otherwise, the creed will, practically speaking, be elevated to a position of authority equivalent to Scripture. A “strict” view of subscription in which ministers are never permitted to teach contrary to any detail of the creed might be seen as a way to protect the orthodoxy of the church. However, in my view, such a view is actually subversive of orthodoxy, because it is subversive of biblical authority and sufficiency. Under such a form of subscription, Scripture is not given the freedom to reform the church according to God’s will.[5]

Frame’s position is reasonable and most commendable, and while it possesses the potential to loosen the hold that confessions have on its office-holders, it also frees those office-holders to demonstrate that Scripture is de facto the supreme standard of the church and the basis of their faith. It is the Christian duty of everyone who subscribes such confessions to do so in the knowledge that where they differ from Scripture in any regard, they must be free to go with Scripture, and not the creedal standard of the church, without ecclesiastical penalty being imposed. It is very easy to agree with Frame’s position in theory but then to invalidate it by saying that the confession of any particular church is so correct that it does not need to be altered. If confessions can be altered to bring them into line with the clear statements of Scripture, especially where the Gospel is concerned, then they ought to be.

DML-J held a similar position to that articulated by Frame. The Presbyterian Church in Wales, into whose ministry he was ordained in 1927, altered its 1823 Confession of Faith in 1875 to include the universal aspect in the Atonement. Then in 1933, the Welsh Presbyterian church adopted a looser attitude to its own Confession of Faith, yet DML-J, who was minister in Sandfields at that time, showed no concern whatever about this. Despite the fact that the Welsh Presbyterian church did this for purely liberal reasons, the Doctor found it liberating and also gave him the freedom to follow where Scripture leads. His evangelistic sermons in Sandfields demonstrate that he too enjoyed a looser adherence to his church’s confessional standards that energised his Gospel preaching, and meant that he was preaching sermons that were in keeping with those confessional standards.

DML-J believed that if a church claims to be ‘Reformed,’ it must demonstrate the authenticity of that claim by continually reforming its affairs,[6] its practice and, where necessary, its confessional standards,[7] according to Scripture. 

The Church is always to be under the Word, ... You must not assume that because the Church started correctly she must continue so. She did not do so in New Testament times; she has not done so since.[8]

Baptist professor of New Testament, Ralph P. Martin, makes a similar point to Frame when he says,

Nevertheless, our confessions are not inherently sacrosanct or beyond revision and improvement; and, of course, church history did not stop in the seventeenth century. We are faced with errors today which those who drew up the great confessions were not faced with and which they did not explicitly address in the confessions, but it is a task to be undertaken with extreme caution. ...[9]

Martin went on to say that “a confession is a useful means for the public affirmation and defence of truth...(it) serves as a public standard of fellowship and discipline...(and it) serves as a concise standard by which to evaluate ministers of the Word.”

---

[1]   Hodge?????

[2]   DML-J, Puritans, 1987:x.

[3]   Uprichard, H. in Evangel, Vol.3:4, 1985:2.

[4]   Macleod, D. in Evangel, Vol.4:1, 1986:11.

[5]   http://www.frame-poythress.org/introduction-to-the-Reformed-faith/  Accessed

       18/05/2013.

[6]    Latin: Ecclesia semper reformanda est.

[7]    http://www.frame-poythress.org/introduction-to-the-Reformed-faith/  Accessed 18/05/2013.

[8]    Evangelical?, 1992:30.

[9]    Martin in Waldron, 1989:9-23.

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).

The Cause Of The Downward Spiral In Preaching

Dr C. A. Criswell says, "Preaching is increasingly looked upon disparagingly; they

(ie, church members) just 'put up with it.' "What has caused this situation to develop?

Criswell thinks that the preacher himself has caused it.  Instead of preaching the Gospel, instead of expounding the Word, instead of saying, 'Thus saith the Lord,' the preacher began preaching psychology, and sociology, economic and civic amelioration. The time was when preachers proclaimed the Gospel; but now they preach sociological life situation sermons that have left the church anaemic. 

Criswell sees the training of preachers in modern seminaries as being at fault in this very thing. I fear that within evangelical circles, there has been a serious move away from the systematic exposition of whole chunks of the Bible, and preachers have adopted a method of textual preaching instead. Now I would be the last to deny that such methodology has been greatly used of God in the past. One just has to mention the name of C. H. Spurgeon to prove the point. Yet I think that the practice of Spurgeon has had a detrimental effect upon the pulpits of the Church, as men have tried to emulate the Prince of Preachers, and have failed. Textual preaching, coupled with the desire to draw the crowds, has enticed men to reduce to a respectable minimum the Biblical and doctrinal content of their sermons, and have compromised their whole ministries thereby. Thus preaching has been degraded by preachers!

It is true that textual sermons can and must be expository. But very often, all you have is a few pious thoughts on some of the words of the text instead of grappling with what the text in its context is actually saying. This has given the clear impression that preaching is something that anyone can do. That's why "anyones" are doing it! And the inevitable result? Preaching has been disparaged in the modern mind.

And worse; church attendees cannot now concentrate long enough to benefit from sustained expository preaching. So the preacher is timed to a 15 minutes sermon, and a 60 minute service. The whole thing has become devalued. 

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).

"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?

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.