- In Chapter 8 of The Baptism and Gifts of the Spirit, a chapter titled “Gifts that Authenticate”, Martyn Lloyd-Jones tackles the issue of the gifts of the Holy Spirit:
“It has certain inherent difficulties, which often arise because of our ignorance of the spiritual realm, but at this time it is a very important matter for two main reasons. The first is that we need some supernatural authentication of our message; and secondly, it is important because of the danger attending it, because of the enemy, who can counterfeit to such an extent as almost to deceive, according to our Lord and Saviour, ‘even the very elect themselves” (152).
After a brief rehearsal of the New Testament passages showing God attesting the message by miraculous deeds (152-155), he asks:
“Now I believe I am right in saying that everyone who is a Christian in any sense at all is prepared to believe and to accept that these things happened, but it is here that the vital question arises—do we accept it as being only true of the early church? Was it only meant to be true of the early church? This is the question to which we must now address ourselves” (155).
He then addresses the arguments of “people who say, ‘Of course I accept everything that I find in the New Testament. I am sure it is historical and that these things actually happened. But that really does not apply to us now, it was only meant for that time’” (156), outlining the arguments of those who believe these extraordinary activities were meant to convince unbelieving Jews (156), that they were intended for the beginning of the Christian church to get the church going (156-157), and that they occurred only until the New Testament canon was completed, with their appeal to 1 Corinthians 13.8-10 (157-159). -
(Cont...)
Lloyd-Jones rejects this cessationist argumentation:
“There, then, is an outline of the argument that is being put forward at the present time, and which has been put forward very largely during this present century. Let me begin to answer it by giving you just one though at this point. It is this: the Scriptures never anywhere say that these things were only temporary – never! There is no such statement anywhere. ‘Ah but’, says somebody, ‘what about that passage from 1 Corinthians 13?’ Well, I would have thought that that chapter is sufficient answer in and of itself to this particular criticism. You see what we are asked to believe by that kind of exposition” We are told that the coming of the New Testament Scriptures puts us into a place of perfection; whereas if you look at verse 12 it actually says: ‘For now we see’ – that is the apostle and others. The apostle is included with all other Christian believers before the New Testament canon, much of which was written by Paul himself, had been completed. We read: ‘Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then’ – when the Scriptures have come and are complete – ‘face to face: Now I know in part; but then’ – which they say means the completion of the Scriptures – ‘shall I know even as also I am known.’
“You see what that involves? It means that you and I, who have the Scriptures open before us, know much more than the apostle Paul of God’s truth. That is what it means and nothing less, if that argument is correct. It means that we are altogether superior to the early church and even to the apostles themselves, including the apostle Paul! It means that we are not in a position in which we know ‘face to face’ that ‘we know, even as also we are known’ by God because we have the Scriptures. It is surely unnecessary to say more.
“What the apostle is, of course, dealing with in 1 Corinthians 13 is the contrast between the highest and the best that the Christian can ever know in this world and in this life and what he will know in the glory everlasting. The ‘now’ and the ‘then’ are not the time before and after the Scriptures were given, because that, as I have said, puts us in a position entirely superior to the apostles and prophets who are the foundation of the Christian church and on whose very work we have to rely. It is inconsistent, and contradictory – indeed, there is only one word to describe such a view, it is nonsense. The ‘then’ is the glory everlasting. It is only then that I shall known, even as also I am known; for then we shall see him as he is. It will be direct and ‘face to face’. No longer, as Paul puts it again in 2 Corinthians 3:18– as an image or a reflection, but direct, absolute, full and perfect knowledge.
“So you see the difficulties men land themselves in when they dislike something and cannot fully understand it and try to explain it away. All things must be judges in the light of the Scriptures, and we must not twist them to suit our theory or argument. Let me finish with this general statement – there is nothing in the Scripture itself which says that these things are to end, and further, every attempt to make the Scriptures say that leads to the same dismal, impossible conclusions that we have already seen in the case of 1 Corinthians 13.
“My friends, this is to me one of the most urgent matters at this hour. With the church as she is and the world as it is, the greatest need today is the power of God through his Spirit in the church that we may testify not only to the power of the Spirit, but to the glory and the praise of the one and only Saviour, Jesus Christ our Lord, Son of God, Son of Man” (159-160).
- D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Baptism and Gifts of the Spirit, Baker Book, 1994 -
FAITH HEALING AND JAMES MAYNARD
“My Dear Gerald,
“Many thanks for your most kind letter. Strangely enough an almost identical one arrived from the authorities of the Sudan Interior Mission except that they had no reference to Maynard James’s booklet.
“With regard to the latter my attitude is this. He belongs to ‘The Church of the Nazarenes’ and they are very good people with whom I am in agreement apart from one thing, namely, that they believe the Baptism with the Holy Spirit confers entire sanctification. In other words they are really the followers of the teaching of John Wesley on holiness. When Maynard James originally sent me this booklet I pointed out of course our disagreement at this point but was able to say that I thought his terms of ‘tongues’ was excellent and balanced.
“On this question of faith-healing I certainly agree with him. I expressed my disagreement with the view put in the Christian Medical Fellowship publication at the time. I think it is quite without scriptural warrant to say that all these gifts ended with the apostles or the apostolic era. I believe there have been undoubted miracles since then. At the same time most of the claimed miracles by the Pentecostalists and others certainly do not belong to that category and can be explained psychologically or in other ways. I am also of the opinion that most, if not all, of the people claiming to speak in tongues at the present time are certainly under a psychological rather than a spiritual influence. But again I would not dare to say that ‘tongues’ are impossible at the present time.”
(D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: Letters 1919-1981, Banner of Truth, 1994, pp. 201-202) -
LLOYD-JONES DISAGREEMENT WITH WARFIELD ON CESSATIONISM: MIRACULOUS HEALING
“There was a measure of different between Dr Lloyd-Jones and other members of the Christian Medical Fellowship on this subject [miraculous healing]. The tendency of these colleagues, in his opinion, came too near to excluding any expectation of the supernatural or, at least, to excluding the possibility of gifts of healing on the grounds of Warfield’s argument that being the ‘accompaniments of apostleship’ they ceased with the apostolic age. A Memorandum on Faith Healing, published ‘for private circulation’ by the CMF in 1956, argued for the cessation of such miraculous gifts but although the committee which produced this Memo was chaired by ML-J he did not accept that part of the argument....”
“In passing it is important to note that the strength of B. B. Warfield’s influence in UCCF and CMF circles was related to ML-J’s advocacy of his writings. It was ML-J who had done most to re-introduce Warfield’s writings in England with the testimony that for conservative evangelicals probably no works have ‘proved to be of greater practical help and a greater stimulus’ than those of ‘the greatest exponent, expounder and defender of the classic Reformed faith in the 20th century’ (Introduction to Biblical Foundations, IVF, 1958). This explains why ML-J in his addresses to CMF colleagues made such a point of disagreeing with the Princeton divine whose influence, in all other respects, he rejoiced to see extended”
Iain H. Murray, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990, p. 786
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Lloyd-Jones on cessationism
A commenter has left some documentation which is worth posting in its own right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Steve, thank you for reposting these. I would have e-mailed them to you but couldn't find an address.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence is that Lloyd-Jones was neither a charismatic nor a cessationist. He criticized charismatic excesses and errors but also spoke out against cessationist arguments, even disagreeing with Warfield on this matter.