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.” 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.” 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.
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.” 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... 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,
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, in
contradistinction to the new perspective on Paul teaching that is current at
this time. 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,
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?
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 –
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. 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.” 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
