Tags
bad, baptism, charismatic, doctor, error, Holy Spirit, joy, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, medicine truth, movement, reformed, second blessing, unspeakable
In an earlier post I mentioned I was reading a book by the good doctor, Martyn Lloyd-Jones called ‘Joy Unspeakable.’ The subtitle is ‘Power & Renewal in the Holy Spirit’.
Of course, the entire book deals with seeking a ‘second blessing’ and baptism with the Spirit, so the subtitle is a little misleading if you count small words, and I do.
Anyway, I had promised to tell you what I thought of the book, but, I’m not quite finished just yet. In the meantime, I wanted to give you a few quotes from the book for you to chew on. John 1:33 is the main text from which the entire book is drawn from, which reads:
I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ (ESV)
In addition to John 1:33, the church and the activity of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts, particularly the day of Pentecost and Acts 2:33 is considered by Jones as the norm for the church as it should be today. Now, having said that, examine these few quotes and see if anything jumps out at you. What are your initial thoughts of the good doctor’s positions? And yes, I’ll give a fuller review later.
Quotes:
“I have tried to show that there is no experience possible to the Christian in this world higher than this experience of the baptism of the Spirit.”
What do you think about that statement?
I am suggesting that that this is something which is therefore obviously distinct from and separate from becoming a Christian, being regenerate, having the Holy Spirit dwelling within you. I am putting it like this – you can be a child of God and yet not be baptized by the Holy Spirit.
I will have fuller comment in the future, Lord willing, but these two comments by the good doctor should cause concern enough.
It’s a shame that this fine man was, at least at the time of his writing, ignorant of a proper understanding of Acts 2:33.
Very disappointing.
I had no idea DML-J took this position. However, he does seem to have had a Piperesque tendency to indulge navel-gazing and to meander on and on…and on, which naturally leads to “riffing” (i.e., confusing one’s personal philosophical “insights” – however vague and extrabiblical – with true revelation). Most of Lloyd-Jones’s stuff is excellent (what of it I’ve read, anyway), but this goes to show that even the soundest of doctors doesn’t get everything right.
What I think is that Lloyd-Jones and the scriptures have parted company. It is quite easy for anyone to build a doctrine based on one or two passages, but really , one has to reconcile all the relevant scipture in order to gain the right perspective on what he word of God is saying.What is made abundantly clear in the bible is that one receives the Holy Spirit at the time of their new birth in Christ, there is no second baptism or second blessing, and in fact , i would go so far as to say that anyone preaching the same is preaching another gospel. But , what I do believe that the word of God teaches is that as we submit ourselves to the Spirit, then naturally we are filled with the Spirit. Its not a matter of how much of the Spirit we have , but rather it is how much of us does the Spirit have.
This seems like the classic interpretational failure of the charistmatics by assuming the book of Acts is prescriptive rather than descriptive. The Spirit still works within us and still performs miracles but does not show signs & wonders on command. It is God’s will that must be done not ours… The Bible is now God’s testimony not signs of the presence of the Spirit.
Do you know about Mark Driscoll on this topic? He has stated that he believes the gifts of the Spirit are fully functional today as in the book of Acts but then he has said and written other things that imply he has a more non-charismatic point of view. Confusing…
MLJ is a good brother in the Lord and I see nothing wrong with his book or his statements taken in context. If you want to look for an enemy of truth please look first in the mirror. You tear pages out of the Scriptures regarding the Holy Spirit and His gifts for fear of misuse but magnify those portions that support calvanism
“Rev.” Joseph,
Not surprising that a follower of Watchman Nee would embrace the error of experiential theology. Jones is a good brother in the Lord – but his theology while yet breathing was not perfect, as Joel is pointing out. No man has had or will have perfect theology while sin yet inhabits our flesh. We all have error and we must not embrace it, but expose and rebuke it.
I do not embrace any error of expeiriential theology. I do respect watchman Nee’s viewpoints on living the exchanged life and Christ in you, as well as Rev. John Hunter, Major Ian Thomas, Andrew Murray, etc. I also have experienced salvation and have received the baptism with/in the Holy Spirit. My escatological viewpoint is partial preterism (which, I might add is not what Nee believed. He was a Darbyist) and I am pretty much amillennial. Please do not lump me into an error camp brother. Jesu is the living word and I try to follow His lead
I do not follow the “error of experiential theology”. I share viewpoints with Nee on the exchanged live and Christ in you…as well as Rev. John Hunter, Major Ian Thomas, Andrew Murray, etc. My escatology is partial peterism (Nee was a Darbyist as far as I can tell) and am pretty much amillennial. I also read and admire Robert Gundry and am mostly Calvinistic in my soteriology. I have “experienced” salvation as well as the baptism in/with the Holy spirit. If this makes me a follower of error, so be it…
Thanks for clearing that up, Joseph. There are things one can rightly learn from Nee – as long as one recognizes the error he also teaches. Press on.
Besides looking at the fruit of this teaching, (with Jones endorsement of 2nd blessing leading the way for Westminster Chapel’s doors to be blown wide open for the Chapel going on into this full speed, after his death..with Toronto Blessing, etc..ya know….) my response to these quotes, in particular, is the strange fire of gnostic thought. For one, just one, it sets the Christian up (having experienced) on a higher level than the ’2nd stringers’ or the ‘ain’t gots.’ (as they are called) Well..Jones says, “no experience possible to the Christian in this world higher than this experience of the baptism of the Spirit.” When ‘experienced’, you are now one of the elite, having inside info, the ‘real scoop’, the mind of God, and ‘experience’ that the struggling little people no nothing of. I know of… never have…of any Charismatic who doesn’t have this mindset. Anyone who hasn’t had the baptism of the spirit, the 2 blessing, in their minds, the have nots, are not living ‘in the spirit’ and therefore don’t know beans, really. They think the have nots just have that other, first-spirit that does nothing much for them as far as experience goes. And they must have experience. (s)…to ‘know things.’ Gnostic.
The Reformed that are being introduced to this (and they are gobbling it up) by way of Piper, YRR, many others, the endorsement of Adrian Warnock on many, many reformed sites (with his big endorsement of “Come! Receive the imparting of the Holy Spirit through Jack Hayford!”…and on it goes is a big concern. Big. Of course MLJ is the read of the day in these groups.
So glad that you posted Joel, looking forward to future posts about MLJ.
Reformed folks today seem to believe that by bluntly saying MLJ was “wrong” or “dead wrong” (the more popular term) about this subject they are putting an end to the discussion. As if using such terms they therefore prove that they are right. MLJ, as well as Tozer, Moody, and Spurgeon (to mention a few of the better know preachers) had a different method of interpreting the Scriptures than Reformed folks today, at least when it came to this subject. Are we today right in saying that our method of interpretation is superior to theirs simply because, with few exceptions, almost everyone in our school of thought agrees with us. It would be at least as fair to judge the correctness of an interpretation by the fruit of the ministry of the one who held it. This is not a defense of the many apparent counterfeits (judging again by fruit) of the experience these great men believed in. I’ve yet to find the true coin in existence today, but that does not prove it never existed or cannot be found again.
The students in the College in 1875 received these earnest words from their suffering President: — “Dear Brethren, I feel sure that you have all stuck to your studies diligently; and my prayer is, that the Holy Spirit may sanctify your human acquirements by a double measure of His anointing. Your power lies in His grace rather than in natural gifts or scholastic acquisitions. Without the Spirit, you will be failures, and worse; therefore, pray much, and see to it that your whole selves are in such a condition that the Spirit of God can dwell in you; for in some men He cannot reside, and with some men He cannot work. Let the channel through which the living water is to flow be both clear and clean. I feel in an agony when I imagine any one of you going forth to preach unendowed by the Spirit. The Lord alone knows how I have the work of the College on my heart, and what exercises it has cost me; and, verily, if souls are not won, churches are not built up, and Christ is not glorified by you, I have lived in vain as to the master-work of my life. I am not able to discover any motive in my heart for originating and carrying on the College, but a desire to glorify God, and to bless this generation by the promulgation of the pure gospel. For this end you came into the College; do not miss it, any one of you; and yet you will do so, if the Spirit rests not upon you. Be not content till Pentecost is repeated among you.” – Spurgeon
The Word of God is the final authority, isn’t it? Not Spurgeon. Thanks for the comment.
The Word is final indeed and Spurgeon, MLJ, and Whitefield (probably the 3 greatest preachers of their respective centuries) would say the same thing – they just interpreted it in a different manner. But they seem to have had something no current well known preacher appears to have, that “indescribable something which is known by the name of unction”. And so the church is as it is, sadly.
Dan – One can not be too sure, but I betcha all three of the men you cited would defer to others, knowing themselves to be sinful men who are not to be lifted up. As Paul Washer puts it when asked his favorite preacher, “Oh, it’s someone you’ve never heard of.” There are many faithful men who preach and exposit the Word, known not by the world and most satisfied to be known, instead, by God. The church is doing just fine, thanks be unto God. The visible church struggles, because we are often not wise enough to spot and expunge the goats from our midst.
Manfred, I’m sure you are right about the opinion the three mentioned preachers had of themselves – I think all true Christians sincerely feel that they are the least of all saints most of the time, and probably some of the time that they are not even truly Christian at all. I realize most in the churches today believe that the the church is doing just fine and the blame for decay, where it exists, is mostly with branches of the church than our own. But there have been other times in the past when the vast majority of church goers did not see anything basically wrong with their own position, when the light of subsequent history revealed otherwise. Those in the Reformed movement today (and I am basically Reformed) appear especially self-confident and this is, I believe, not a good thing. I corresponded with a Reformed pastor once about MLJ’s view on this subject and he for no reason got angry that I persisted in not agreeing with his argument, which was that MLJ was “dead wrong” because, well, not one Reformed pastor he knew of today agreed with him. This used to be a serious and vital matter in the Protestant wing of the church and one worth fighting for. Spurgeon once said about it “If we have not the Spirit of God, it were better to shut the churches, to nail up the doors, to put a black cross on them, and say, ‘God have mercy on us!’ If you ministers have not the Spirit of God you would better not preach, and you people would better stay at home. I think I speak not too strongly when I say that a church in the land without the Spirit of God is rather a curse than a blessing. If you have not the Spirit of God, Christian worker, remember that you stand in somebody else’s way. You are as a tree bearing no fruit standing where another fruitful tree might grow. This is solemn work: the Holy Spirit or nothing and worse than nothing. Death and condemnation to a church that is not yearning after the Spirit, and crying and groaning until the Spirit has wrought mightily in her midst.” I believe one of the primary reasons there has not been a true revival for what seems like forever is the dismissive attitude of the “orthodox” today to this subject. If any are curious and not quite sure about their opinion on this theme, listen to a few of the sermons of Duncan Campbell that can be found on the net for a sense of what “unction” is. Campbell was the main preacher in the revival in the Hebrides some 50 years ago. Or listen to MLJ’s evangelistic sermons (preached on Sunday evenings at his church)
Dan, since according to Scripture, all true believers are indwelt by the Spirit, why seek more of what you already possess? We’ve been given every blessing in the heavenlies, in Christ, yet we are to be not satisfied and ask for more?
Joel, I realize that is the prevailing notion today, but that does not necessity mean it is true. The view taken by Spurgeon, MLJ, Tozer and a host of other saintly men in past ages was arrived at by using a different “method of interpretation”. They taught that all believers had a measure of the Spirit at regeneration, but not the fullness of Him, and the used Scripture texts to support their position. The Pentecostals and Charismatics use similar arguments as the older school but arrive at a different experience in my view. It was a neat trick of the devil that God allowed for some reason, but the results have not been good. I find the spirituality in the writings of the older school to be of another sort than is found in the preaching and books of more recent times. There was a spiritual penetration and elevation of thought and expression that I don’t find today but can be found in profusion in older books. Who today, for example, could produce a McCheyne’s Memoirs or Rutherford’s Letters? Or where is the man who could write Whitefield’s Journals in sincerity? I believe the reason for the disparity today is largely due to the neglect of this doctrine as it was once experienced. I may be wrong, but I am wrong in good company. I encourage any who might read this to read such writings and listen to the sermons as I mention and compare for themselves what they hear there and what they receive as common fare today. MLJ’s sermons on revival, which can be got on one disc in MP3 format is also a good place to start. “Wrote several letters to my friends at Savannah, and was filled with the Holy Ghost. Oh, that all who deny the promise of the Father might thus receive it themselves!” – George Whitefield