Islam, Jihadist, good Muslims and bad Muslims - are you confused?

The press has been quick to sanitize any reference to Muslims taking part in terrorist activities. They say these are all the work of small radical factions, the jihadist, who  don't represent what real Muslim stands for.  After all Islam is a religion of peace they repeat.

I lived in an Islamic country for many years. In that country, there are two major groups of Muslims - the radical fundamentalist group that want to bring their society (including everyone else) back to the teachings of the Koran, and the other moderate group who are happy to make a living and have a nice house and car.

Both groups attend mosques weekly, say their prayers daily while bowing to Mecca. So what's the difference between the two? Why has one group become so radical?
The answer is simple - one reads the Koran and practices it, while the other group just goes to the mosque because they were born Muslims.  Guess which group the terrorists come from? The group who reads and practices the Koran!

This is where the media are deceiving the masses. They say that these radicals are extreme groups that do not represent Islam, In reality, these radicals represent Islam, and the moderates are the ones who don't follow their Koran strictly.  These latter group are the equivalent of the traditional Christians who attend church once in Easter and once during Christmas.

When a Muslim reads the Koran, and seeks to obey it, they have no choice but become radicals because that is what the Koran teaches.  There will be peace when the entire world is under the rule of Islam. In order to achieve that 'peace', all infidels need to be brought into subjection. If they refuse, kill them. Look at this verse from the Koran:

“And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.” (Sura 2, verse 191).

Haven't history proven this - look at what Muhammed its founder did to the nations he conquered. Look at what happen in Constantinople when the Turks took it. Whenever Muslims conquer a non-Muslim country, its inhabitants have two choices - convert to Islam or die. For recent examples, look at what has happened to Sudan and other smaller African nations.

What about Muslim countries now? I see freedom of religion where other non Muslim groups are tolerated.  This is due to the fact that these governments are not 'Muslim' by definition or in practice - they are luke warm Muslims i.e don't really practice the teachings of the Koran.  Have a guess what happens to any of these minority group if they don't tow the line in these Muslim majority countries. Dare any of them hold public rallies like the Muslims are allowed in the West?

Islam is a 'religion of peace' by any means, including beheading your opponents.  It's peace if you submit but death if you don't.  Submission means slavery, rape, blackmails and kidnapping - slavery in a different form. It is a religion that has no place in this world.

I do have Muslim friends who are gentle country folks. They say their prayers but do not carry out all the teachings of the Koran, hence they do not become jihadist. But the moment some firebrand jihadist stirs them up to follow what the Koran teaches, you suddenly have a very different person - not the neighbor you thought you knew.

I hope Muslims wake up to realize that their religion has put them in bondage. I hope they have the courage to break free and be brave enough to bear the attacks that will come their way.   I hope children of Muslim families see the freedoms enjoyed in the West and ask why such freedoms do not exist in the Muslim nations. I hope the world sees why Muslims by the thousands want to emigrate to Western countries.  If Islam is so good, stay there.

Oh, and I also wish those blind Leftist who are trying to destroy our Judeo-Christian culture realize what a great blessing it is to live in a Western society, enjoying its freedoms, free speech, morality and peace. These are a result of Christianity turning the world upside down.  I can see the difference because I used to live in a Muslim nation.

Games church leaders play in church

I came to the realization that not everyone in the church leadership has the welfare of the members in mind.  I was naive to think that church leaders were spiritually mature people who are there to serve the Lord. 

What I have seen is that some (perhaps many?) leaders have got there due to a lot of different reasons, but serving the Lord is not one of them.

  

Some are there because they are talented or sharp people - professionals and people with charismatic personalities. A good accountant has a pretty good chance of being asked to be the treasurer. How closely they walk with God is never a consideration.    Some are there for the ego trip - 'look I'm an elder you should listen to me'. Some are there for power, to control the church and support one faction - usually either against or for the pastor. I'd like to reveal some of the worldly methods this last group uses. Remember the motivation of these people is not to serve God, but their egos.

The leader or pastor will split the church up into groups of supporters or non-supporters. It is usually quite clear who the ‘in’ group are and who are the rest. This division could be as simple as 'young vs. old' or 'conservative vs. progressive'. Certainly not what the bible teaches.  The way they split the church is by treating one group very differently from the others. Sometimes it is done deliberately and openly to show the others that they are not part of the 'in' group. 

The pastor of a church I used to attend would refuse to talk to half the congregation, other than the usual 'Hello how are you'. He would deliberately walk pass and ignore people. I often wonder why a pastor would behave like that, after all , isn't he suppose to shepherd the flock?  Then it dawned on me that he is giving them a clear hint to leave his church. What better strategy than to give the cold shoulder to someone you want leave the church! 

And if the person is a threat, this pastor would mention the person in his sermons (without names of course). This is to force the person to leave faster. I did some investigation and found out that those who left had one thing in common - they have all been mentioned in the sermons,,, frequently. In case you think people are overly sensitive, the things mentioned in the sermon are very specific, and the person who is mentioned will certainly know it's being directed at him.  This pastor has been doing this for over 15 years and he continues to use this because it has been very successful in getting rid of people who do not support him. May God have mercy on this pastor - he is supposed to shepherd the flock, instead he drives then away, He has turned the church into his private country club of approved members. 

You'll be surprised how many such cases there are. I spoke to a Christian who runs a bookshop, and he was also driven out of his church by the pastor because he questioned him about constantly quoting from psychology books instead of the bible.  A good friend of his was also driven out of his church when he asked why the pastor preached an entire series of sermons directly out of Spurgeon' sermons without acknowledging the original author (this pastor plagiarized Spurgeon entire sermon) and making it his own. A cheat.     

Another trick I've seen used is the spreading of gossip by the leadership. The smart ones will make sure that he is not seen as the spreader of gossip.  They are crafty enough to use words like 'Jane told me that John did this...' or 'Jo asked me to pray for her because Bill ...'.  Unethical?  When someone is not walking with the Lord, he will resort to the ways of the world to get what he wants - and pastors are certainly not immune.  Many treat their calling like a job, so they behave accordingly.   When your pastor was interviewed, did anyone ask him about his walk with God, or how the Lord has been dealing with him? A good question would be 'what did God teach your the last 12 months?' I can put money on it that the interviewers were more interested in how he grew his last church and how many  programs he started, and what techniques he managed to mobilize the church programme, and what offering he managed to raise (extract) from the congregation. You get what you asked for,

What does the church become when unspiritual people get into power?  A bunch of worldly wise people manipulating and bullying the flock for their own ends. A den of vipers!  That's why choose your leaders carefully, there is no turning back. With the current state the church is in today, the majority will vote in the most popular or sharp person into the leadership, certainly not the most spiritual.  

Who is responsible for the state the church is in? The leadership!  Leaders and pastors who do not feed the flock the Word of God. And who is responsible for the current state of our pastors?  The bible seminaries and the pulpits of the previous generation.  Leaders have lost the fear of God, they don't seek God, and resort to the world's way of dealing with issues - politics and manipulation.  What a terrible state the church is in. 

As one senior pastor advised me, 'if your pastor has not changed after 10 years, he is not going to change now, best to leave'.  May I encourage you to do this if you have a church leadership who do not obey the Lord.  Get out before the judgment of God falls, 

To those churches who have genuine shepherds, treasure them and be gentle with them. They are a rare breed.

 

Heresies in the church 7 - God loves the sinner but hates his sin

I've heard this said so many times by people who try and make the gospel more attractive to non-Christians.

This is what I classify as a Christian cliché. The church is full of these. "Once saved always saved", "Don't look at anyone except Christ", "God has a wonderful plan for your life", just to name a few.  The dangers with these cliché is that they become a substitute for scripture. They are regarded as unchallengeable as inspired scripture.  They often contain an aspect of truth, usually in a very specific context, but the real danger is that they are taken to be absolute truth in all circumstances. This is where this half-truth becomes a total falsehood.  

I'd like to focus on one today "God loves the sinner but hates his sin".

Here is an obvious question - where does it say in the bible that God love the sinner?  

Are you surprised if I were to tell you that no such scripture exist? What we actually find in scripture are verses like John 3:16 “...God so loved the world...”, and Romans 5:8 "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". Now, these are very different from 'God loves sinners'... There is no doubt that God loves the world, in which sinners are included (in fact every person who ever lived except Jesus falls into the category of 'sinner'). But 'God loves the world' and 'God loves sinners' are two different statements, although a very subtle one.  

When we say that 'God loves sinners', we are saying a few things that we do not mean to say. It implies that God loves the person who is still indulging in his sin. So for the sinner, it's great, God loves me although He hates my adultery. So I'm alright. I don't have to worry about God's judgment because He loves me.  I can still continue practicing my adultery.   It's only my actions he hates, but He loves me yessss!  

The bible actually says God hates the sinner.  Take  Psalm 5:5 which reads, "The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity".  I can almost bet that your preacher never mentioned this in all his sermons.  God hates the workers of iniquity - the sinner.  

But God also loves the world which by implications comprises sinners.  We have to reconcile these two aspects of truth. When we can't reconcile, it's not that scripture is wrong, it’s our lack of understanding.  It is my opinion that the bible does not explicitly state that God loves the sinner because of its implications i.e. God loves the person who is continuing in his sin, therefore endorsing the sin.

So when we say that "God loves the sinner but hates the sin', we really need to be aware of its implications and not risk saying more than what the bible is saying.  We can say that God loves people so much that He gave His only Son Jesus to die on the cross for sinners. But we should not tell an adulterer that God loves him as an adulterer.  It sends the wrong message.

So what attitude should we have?  

 Jude 1:22–23: “Be merciful to those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.” 

Dangers of the new 'God-does-not-guide-Christians-so-use-your-own-wisdom' teaching

I came across this teaching recently where the seminary professor taught that God does not guide Christians by telling them what to do - whether to marry a certain person or not, whether to take up a job or stay, etc. You just have to use the wisdom that God has given you and make your decisions based on your best pro-and-con evaluation. As long as it is not a moral decision that contradicts the bible's moral teachings, you can do anything and choose any path.

This teaching alarms me as there are implications.  Besides the fact that this new teaching contradicts many of the teachings by other devoted Christians, especially godly men of the last and previous century, this teaching seems to fly against the teaching of scriptures.

In the book of Acts, we see the Holy Spirit clearly leading the apostles. Go there, don't go there. Granted that God does not tell everyone exactly which step to take next all the time, we have cases whether holy men asked God and He answered. The Old Testament are full of examples of prophets and kings who asked God for direction, and He answered. Are we saying that now, when the Holy Spirit has been poured out, that we receive less guidance? Of course not. God guides nowadays more than ever. He who guided the apostles is the same Spirit who is in us now. 

I digressed from my original intention of writing this article. I want to list some of the dangers of the mentioned teaching.

• It takes God out of the picture. We don't have to ask for God's will anymore. Just weigh the pro-and-cons and decide. This is contrary to the whole spirit of the bible where we are reminded of our constant sinful independent spirit instead of relying on God. My will and decision is what matters since God doesn't give guidance. 
• On a more subtle area, it takes the supernatural out of the bible. God has given us His written Word and is now silent. Don't expect supernatural guidance. Don't expect to hear the voice of God (by this I do not mean a verbal voice, I mean God speaking to our spirit through various channels and means).  
• Another danger is that it also implies that God doesn't care about these kind of decisions. He leaves them totally to our 'wisdom'.   Too bad if some Christians are not too bright!  
• It becomes a very subjective decision.  My pro-and-con will be tainted by my own selfish motives and desires. My conclusion will be different from someone who has different experiences and knowledge, and even age or gender.
• It allows me to do almost anything I want and justify it. It's so easy to rationalize that God wants me to do something when it is actually myself who wants it.  A person can have grand ideas that he will make a great preacher like Billy Graham. He can rationalize that he has good oratory skills, can understand the bible like a theologian and likes the kind of respect given to pastors, so he applies for a job as a pastor. And he gets it based on good academic results and personality.  Imagine what harm he can do the church when he has not been called into the ministry.

When such a teaching is adopted, it encourages seminary graduates to take up pastoral positions because it is something they like to do (after all they have done the training), instead of asking if God wants them to be pastors. Imagine a whole generation of graduates from bible seminaries looking for jobs and applying for any pastoral position that comes along. Imagine them 'pastoring' churches because it is a job they applied and got instead of where God wants them to be. Then ask why there is so little genuine love for the people in the church. Also ask why the pastor also chooses to work in certain ministries and not others. If it is a high profile job like preaching, yes of course. But if it is working in the background encouraging the down-hearted or calling up those people with problems, the pastor is nowhere to be found. These background jobs don't give him the profile he craves.   You end up with a 'hireling' instead of a genuine 'shepherd'. (BTW the word for pastor is the same word for shepherd)

Look at David. In 2 Samuel, he asked the Lord “shall I go up to one of the towns in Judah?”  God directs him to Hebron.  Again in 2 Samuel 23, David asked the Lord if he should attack the Palestines in Keilah.  God tells him to go.  Shall I do this or shall I not?  God gives him the answer all the time.

That is what we must do as Christians. Ask the Lord to direct us. And He will, often not the way we expect. He can direct us so many ways, through our spirit, through the counsel of another Christian, through His written word, etc.  Let’s not limit God to one method only.  At the same time, let’s not limit God by saying He doesn’t guide Christians anymore. 

 “The Lord is my Shepherd..”  (Psalms 23:1).  I’ve never heard of a shepherd who doesn’t leads his flock?  Have you?

Anti Christian Bias in the media

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

How To Be Filled With The Holy Spirit - A.W. Tozer

Almost all Christians want to be full of the Spirit. Only a few want to be filled with the Spirit. But how can a Christian know the fullness of the Spirit unless he has known the experience of being filled? It would, however, be useless to tell anyone how to be filled with the Spirit unless he first believes that he can be. No one can hope for something he is not convinced is the will of God for him and within the bounds of scriptual provision. Before the question 'How can I be filled?' has any validity the seeker after God [i]must be sure that the experience of being filled is actually possible[/i]. The man who is not sure can have no ground of expectation. Where there is no expectation there can be no faith, and where there is no faith the inquiry is meaningless. The Doctrine of the Spirit as it relates to the believer has over the last half century [written in 1957] been shrouded in a mist such as lies upon a mountain in stormy weather. A world of confusion has surrounded this truth. The children of God have been taught contrary doctrines from the same texts, warned, threatened and intimidated until they instinctively recoil from every mention of the Bible teaching concerning the Holy Spirit. This confusion has not come by accident. An enemy has done this. Satan knows that Spiritless evangelicalism is as deadly as Modernism or heresy, and he has done everything in his power to prevent us from enjoying our true Christian heritage. A church without the Spirit is as helpless as Israel might have been in the wilderness if the fiery cloud had deserted them. The Holy Spirit is our cloud by day and our fire by night. Without him we only wander aimlessly about the desert. That is what we today are surely doing. We have divided ourselves into little ragged groups, each one running after a will-o'-the-wisp or firefly in the mistaken notion that we are following the Shekinah. It is not only desirable thatr the cloudy pillar should begin to glow again. It is imperative. The Church can have light only as it is full of the Spirit, and it can be full only as the members who compose it are filled individually. Furthermore, no one can be filled until he is convinced that being filled is a part of the total plan of God in redemption; that it is nothing added or extra, nothing strange or queer, but a proper and spiritual operation of God, based upon and growing out of the work of Christ in atonement. The inquirer must be sure to the point of conviction. He must believe that the whole thing is normal and right. He must believe that it is God's will that he be anointed with a horn of fresh oil beyond and in addition to all the ten thousdand blessings he may already have received from the good hand of God. Until he is so convinced I recommend that he take time out to fast and pray and meditate upon the Scriptures. Faith comes from the Word of God. Suggestion, exhortation or the psychological effect of the testimony of others who have been filled will not suffice. Unles he is persuaded from the Scriptures he should not press the matter nor allow himself to fall victim to the emotional manipulators intent upon forcing the issue. God is wonderfully patient and understanding and will wait for the slow heart to catch up with the truth. In the meantime, the seeker should be calm and confident. In due time God will lead him through the Jordan. Let him not break loose and run ahead. Too many have done so, only to bring disaster upon their Christian lives. After a man is convinced that he can be filled with the Spirit [i]he must desire to be[/i]. To the interested inquirer I ask these questions: Are you sure that you want to be possessed by a Spirit Who, while He is pure and gentle and wise and loving, will yet insist upon being Lord of your life? Are you sure you want your personality to be taken over by One Who will require obedience to the written Word? Who will not tolerate any of the self-sins in your life: self-love, self-indulgence? Who will not permit you to strut or boast or show off? Who will take the direction of your life away from you and will reserve the sovereign right to test you and discipline you? Who will strip away from you many loved objects which secretly harm your soul? Unless you can answer an eager 'Yes' to these questions you do not want to be filled. You may want the thrill or the victory or the power, but you do not really want to be filled with the Spirit. Your desire is little more than a feeble wish and is not pure enough to please God, Who demands all or nothing. Again I ask: Are you sure you [i]need to be filled[/i] with the Spirit? Tens of thousands of Christians, laymen, preachers, missionaries, manage to get on somehow without having had a clear experience of being filled. That Spiritless labour can lead only to tragedy in the day of Christ, is something the average Christian seems to have forgotten. But how about you? Perhaps your doctrinal basis is away from belief in the crisis of the Spirit's filling. Very well, look at the fruit of such doctrine. What is your life producing? You are doing religious work, preaching, singing, writing, promoting, but what is the [i]quality[/i] of your work? True; you received the Spirit at the moment of conversion, but is it also true that you are ready without further anointing to resist temptation, obey the Scriptures, understand the truth, live victoriously, die in peace and meet Christ without embarrassment at His coming? If, on the other hand, your soul cries out for God, for the living God, and your dry and empty heart dispairs of living a normal Christian life without a further anointing, then I ask you: Is your desire all-absorbing? Is it the biggest thing in your life? Does it crowd out every common religious activity and fill you with an acute longing that can only be described as the pain of desire? If your heart cries 'Yes' to these questions you may be on your way to a spiritual break-through which will transform your whole life. It is in the preparation for receiving the Spirit's anointing that most Christians fail. Probably no one was ever filled without first having gone through a period of deep soul disturbance and inward turmoil. When we find ourselves entering this state the temptation is to panic and draw back. Satan exhorts us to take it easy lest we make shipwreck of the faith, and dishonour the Lord who bought us. Of course Satan cares nothing for us nor for our Lord. His purpose is to keep us weak and unarmed in a fay of conflict. And millions of believers accept his hypocritical lies as gospel truth and go back to their caves like the prophets of Obadiah to feed on bread and water. Before there can be fullness there must be emptiness. Before God can fill us with Himself we must first be emptied of ourselves. It is this emptying that brings the painful disappointment and despair of self which so many persons have complained just prior to their new and radiant experience. There must come a total of self-disvaluation, a death to all things without us and within us, or ther can never be real filling with the Holy Spirit. [i]The dearest idol I have known, Whate'er that idol be. Help me to tear it from Thy throne, And worship only thee.[/i] We sing this glibly enough, but we cancel out our prayer by our refusal to surrender the very idol of which we sing. To give up our last idol is to plunge ourselves into a state of inward loneliness which no gospel meeting, no fellowship with other Christians, can ever cure. For this reason most Christians play it safe and settle for a life of compromise. They have some of God, to be sure, but not all; and God has some of them, but not all. And so they live their tepid lives and try to disguise with bright smiles and snappy choruses the deep spiritual destitution within them. One thing should be made crystal clear: the soul's journey through the dark night is not a meritorious one. The suffering and loneliness do not make a man dear to God. Everything comes out of his goodness on the grounds of Christ's redeemed blood and is a free gift, with no strings attached. What the soul agony does is to break from earthly interests and focus the attention upon God. All that has gone before is by way of soul preparation for the divine act of infilling. The infilling itself is not a complicated thing. While I shy away from 'how to' formulas in spiritual things, I believe the answer to the question 'How can I be filled?' may be answered in four words, all of them active verbs. They are [i](1) surrender, (2) ask, (3) obey, (4) believe. Surrender: I Beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of GOd, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. (Romans 12:1-2) Ask: If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him? (Luke 11:13) Obey: We are His witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey Him. (Acts 5:32)[/i] Complete and ungrudging obedience to the will of God is absolutely indispensable to the reception of the Spirit's anointing. As we wait before God we should reverently search the Scriptures and listen for the voice of gentle stillness to learn what our Heavenly Father expects of us. Then, trusting to His enabling, we should obey to the best of our ability and understanding. [i]Believe: This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Galatians 3:2)[/i] While the infilling of the Spirit is received by faith and only by faith, let us beware of that imitation faith which is no more than a mental assent to truth. It has been a source of great disappointment to multitudes of seeking souls. True faith invariably brings a witness. But what is that witness? It is nothing physical, vocal nor phychical. The Spirit never commits himself to the flesh. The only witness He gives is a subjective one, known to the individual alone. The Spirit announces himself to the deep-in spirit of the man. The flesh profiteth nothing, but the believing heart knows. [i]Holy, Holy, Holy[/i]. One last thing: Neither in the Old Testament not in the New, Nor in Christian testimony as found in the writings of the saints as far as my knowledge goes, was any believer ever filled with the Holy Spirit [i]who did not know he had been filled[/i]. Neither was anyone filled [i]who did not know when he was filled[/i]. And [i]no one was ever filled gradually[/i]. Behind these three trees many half-hearted souls have tried to hide, like Adam from the presence of the Lord, but they are not good enough hiding places. The man who does not know when he was filled was never filled (though of course it is possible to forget the date). And the man who hopes to be filled gradually will never be filled at all. In my Sober judgement the relation of the Spirit to the believer is the most vital question the Church faces today. The problems raised by Christian existentialism or neo-orthadoxy are nothing by comparison with this most critical one. Ecumenicity, eschatalogical theories - none of these things deserve consideration until every believer can give an affirmative answer to the question, 'Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?' And it might easily be that after we have been filled with the spirit we will find to our delight that the very infilling itself has solved the other problems for us. -A.W. Tozer

He is not here, He is risen

What could turn a bunch of cowardly disciples into men who will give their lives for their beliefs?

Certainly no self-generated hoax or lie will have that kind of transforming power.  What changed them in just 3 days?  

They have seen the risen Lord!  

After the crucifixion of their leader Jesus, they hid behind locked doors in despair. Even though Jesus told them several times he will rise, they could not believe it. Lazarus, the poor widow's son and Jairus' daughter were different, they were raised to life by He who is the life giver. Now the source of that power is Himself dead. They touched his cold lifeless body as they prepared his burial.  They know a dead man when they see one.

No one expected Jesus to rise. The women prepared spices to complete the burial on the Sunday morning. The disciples were still hiding behind closed doors, when they should be waiting at the tomb for Jesus to rise from the dead.

Then they heard rumours, and sightings of the risen Jesus. The source was unreliable women (hmm...in those days the testimony of women were considered unreliable).

Then the Lord appear to Peter.  Brave, reckless, cowardly Peter, who denied Him three times. What grace, that Peter was the first of the  11 disciples to see the Lord. He appeared specifically to Mary Magdalene also, the one who showed immeasurable love to the Lord because whoever has been forgiven much loves much.

He also appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Cleopas and an unnamed disciple - most likely the other Mary his wife). They returned to tell the disciples.

And finally, He appeared to all the disciples (except Thomas) in a crowded locked room. That gave them such a fright that they thought He was a ghost. I would love to have been there at that very moment Jesus appeared.  If they were eating popcorn, I can just see the popcorn flying in the air, and some disciples hiding behind tables.

Jesus called on them to touch him, and inspect the holes in his hands and feet. He ate a fish to show that he was flesh, not a spirit.

This is the turning point in their lives.  

They touched, they handled, they talked and communed with their risen Lord. All the preaching in the world was never going to convince them.  It was their personal encounter with Jesus. This is what transforms lives. The scriptures are essential, but they are not the end, they are the means. The scriptures point to Jesus. It is Jesus that we all must encounter personally.  If you stop at merely reading and understanding the scriptures, you have only half completed the journey. Head knowledge itself will not cause such a dramatic change.

When the encounter with Jesus is real, it transforms. In this case, cowards to heroes. 

Observe where the disciples were meeting together after the ascension of Jesus (Luke 24)? At the temple!  Right in the middle of that brood of vipers who gave Jesus to be crucified. It's like sending them a message - come get me, I'm no longer afraid of what you can do to me. Do your worse, because I have seen the risen Saviour, and one day I am going to be with Him. 

And when the Holy Spirit filled them at Pentecost, they were filled with power and boldness to be witnesses for Jesus. This completes the transformation - Jesus in the person of the Holy Spirit, with them, living in them, doing His works through them.

If you haven't had such a personal transforming encounter with Jesus, seek after Him with all your heart. Put aside all the lifeless teachings you have been taught by people who have not experienced Jesus themselves, and go to the Lord.  "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God".   

Hallelujah, Lord Jesus come.

Is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit for today?

The position of the majority of conservative evangelical churches (non-charismatic) is that the gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased, and that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurred at conversion when a person is 'baptised into the body of Christ'.

I do have a few reflections concerning this view, but admit that there is much I still do not understand.

The two camps

Whenever this topic is brought out, people move to two opposite camps - the charismatics on one side and the traditional mainstream believers on the other end. Each group can tell the other group why they are wrong with a dozen different reasons. I'd like to post a question to those who deny that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is for today. If your view is correct, why are you not demonstrating the same power that we read in the book of Acts? Where is the power to preach that causes thousands to repent and turn to Christ?  If your view is correct, then let the evidence validate it. And for those who say that you have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the same question applies, can you show by the evidence that what you have received is genuine? Are the results of your experience the same as what happened in Acts 2 where large numbers of people got converted? Some 'let’s-get-real' questions to think about.

Before I go on, note that there are conservative Christians (e.g. Martyn Lloyd Jones, Andrew Murray, RA Torrey, David Pawson) who do not agree with today's main stream view.  Also, I am not advocating the excesses as taught in certain charismatic churches. However the existence of what is false must not push us to the extreme of denying the real, i.e. don't throw the baby out with the bath water.   So although this may be new to you, it is not a heretical view, so please consider these arguments before dismissing it. I believe there are more 'mainstream' Christians who believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in the 19th century than today, such as the Keswick Movement. These are godly men and not fringe groups.  

Now, let's look as some of the evidence.

Were they already Christians?

Were the 3 groups of people (Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles) who were baptised in the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues in the book of Acts already Christians?  Some argue that they were John's disciples or Old Testament believers, hence they were not New Testament Christians.  This is a pretty weak argument. They believed in Jesus Christ so it would not be correct to label them as Old Testament believers.  If they had died before the 'baptism' they would be in heaven with Jesus.  Certainly Peter and all the people waiting in the upper room in Acts chp 2 believed in Christ.  If they were New Testament believers, then what happened to them was a separate experience from conversion.

Is it a one-time event?

Some say this incident was the first time the Holy Spirit was given to the church, is not repeatable and therefore not for today. This is not true, as it was repeated several times in the book of Acts alone (Acts 8, 10, 19). There is no evidence from Acts that it has stopped after Acts 19.

Should we ask?

Look at Luke 11:9-13

"And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened... how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"

Who is the Holy Spirit given to? Unbelievers or believers?   From the text above, it is to those who call God Father. Believers! Notice that the believer is commanded to ask. It is not an automatic thing. If it were an automatic thing that happens at conversion, why would Jesus teach us to ask the Father? The giving of the Holy Spirit is separate from believing in Jesus since these people are already believers.

Before or after conversion?

The confusion arises when the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at the same time as conversion.

1.  Act 2:4 the Jewish believers received the baptism of the Holy Spirit after conversion. 

2.  Acts 8:16 the Samaritans were believers in Jesus and received the baptism of the Holy Spirit after conversion. It showed that God received the Samaritans.

3.  Acts 10:44-46 Cornelius and his household receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit during the moment they believed in Jesus Christ. It showed that God accepted the gentiles.

4.  Acts 19:5 John's disciples were baptised with water in the name of Christ, then in a separate act, Paul laid hands on them and they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. On this occasion, it happened just after. I'm assuming that they believed in Jesus Christ first, then water baptised, then Holy Spirit baptised.

As you can see, some happened after, and some during. You can see that the baptism and conversion are two distinct events that occurred separately as well as together.  There is no record in Acts that it has ceased. 

Look at the timing in Acts 8:14-18 in more detail

14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit,16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

Here, the receiving of the Holy Spirit is clearly a separate event from conversion as they were already 'new believers' - it happened after conversion.   Notice that they did not receive the Holy Spirit at conversion   automatically but it required the laying of hands. Simon the magician saw that the Holy Spirit was given to believers through the laying on of hands - not automatically. Noticed that these believers had already been baptised in the name of Jesus Christ i.e. New Testament believers just like us.

Is the 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' the same as the 'Spirit's indwelling' at conversion?

One counter argument is that the Holy Spirit is given to the church for the first time in Acts chp 2, and subsequent to this, every believer will have the Holy Spirit indwelling automatically. The premise of this argument is that prior to Acts 2:4, the Holy Spirit does not live in a believer; after Acts 2:4, the Holy Spirit dwells in every believer. This argument is based on the assumption that believers prior to Acts 2:4 do not have the Holy Spirit indwelling.

I find this argument less plausible as it will mean that the disciples (Acts 2), the Samaritans (Acts 8) and John's disciples (Acts 19) did not have the Holy Spirit even though they all believed in Jesus Christ. This will contradict Romans 8:9 'whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ is none of His'.  

Peter and the other disciples in Acts chp 1 are saved, converted Christians. They have already experienced the new birth by the Holy Spirit.  They exercised total faith in Jesus which an unconverted person cannot do. Every Christian has the Spirit of Christ otherwise he is not a Christian.

(Note that there is another view that is slightly different from the above. A Christian can have the Holy Spirit working in him and causing him to be born again but he still has not received the Holy Spirit in the Pentecost sense. This is based on words of Jesus in John 14:16 'He lives with you and will be in you'. This view still argues that conversion and receiving the Holy Spirit are separate events)

I'm not sure if John 20:22 adds even more weight to the argument that the disciples already have the Holy Spirit prior to Acts chp 2.  After His resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and breathed on them and said "Receive the Holy Spirit".  The disciples have already received the Holy Spirit but there is no mention in scriptures that He left them later.  The meaning of this passage is a bit obscure to me so I don’t want to use this single text to base my arguments.

(Note: I'm not sure if we should differentiate 'the Spirit of Christ' and 'Holy Spirit' and 'Spirit of God' in the context of Romans chp 8 - the terms are used by Paul interchangeably. We are still talking about the Spirit of God regardless of which term is used).

The confusion arises when a person equates the Holy Spirit indwelling a believer at conversion to the baptism (outpouring) of the Holy Spirit.  The baptism of the Holy Spirit has never been described in the bible as an indwelling or a conversion experience. The descriptions are outpouring, immersion (baptise), filling – words that give the idea of being saturated. 

Let’s take a look at the aim of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, because this will clarify what it is.

The aim of the baptism

In Acts 1:8 Jesus said “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

They were not waiting in the upper room to be converted - they were waiting for the promise of the Father so they can be empowered to turn the world upside down.   So the aim is power to witness, not conversion.  This supports that argument that the baptism and conversion are separate events in the life of a believer. It could happen at the same time as in the Cornelius example.

A less confusing description

Joel chp 2:28 says that God ‘will pour out his Spirit on all flesh’. This pouring out is described in Acts 2:4 as 'filled with the Holy Spirit'.  This is not a description of conversion, but a very special anointing - an outpouring, an immersion of a person with God's Spirit, a figurative baptism in the Holy Spirit!  Some prefer to use the word 'filling of the Holy Spirit' which is the actual word used in Acts 2:4.

To summarize, a Christian has the Holy Spirit (Spirit of Christ) when he is converted, but he may or may not have experienced the outpouring (filling) of the Holy Spirit.

Should believers ask for the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Every believer ought to have received the gift of the Holy Spirit when they believed since it is our Father's gift to them. But if they haven't been filled, they should ask God for the filling/outpouring of the Holy Spirit in their lives (Luke 11:9-13). I think if we see the word 'baptism' it creates all sorts of pre-conceived ideas about what it is.  If we use the word 'filling' instead, it is easier to grasp. Think of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as an event where a person is totally saturated by the Holy Spirit   i.e. filled to over flowing by the Holy Spirit.  This also means it can happen again and again, not a one-time event. Prior to Acts 2, the Holy Spirit has never been out-poured to so many people in this way before, so it was special.

Objection - I've already got it at my conversion

Many mainstream believers say they have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit at conversion. This is a weak argument.  Looking at this from the practical side, please show me that you have received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit by the power that comes with it. Jesus told the disciples to tarry in Jerusalem until they receive power. So where is the power? 

Granted that it is arguable that in 3 instances, God validated that He has received the Jews, the Samaritans and the Gentiles into the church. But there are other instances where validation of God's acceptance into the church is not needed - post Samaritan instances in Act 8 and John's disciples in Acts 19.

I don't think we should focus on the signs as it is the filling by the Spirit of God that is important - doing God's work is what counts. There has been an unhealthy slant towards the signs and gifts rather than the filling itself. We desire God, not just His goodies.  Many believers who have received the baptism stop here - they got it but do nothing after that. They may as well have 'not got it' as they have added nothing to the kingdom of God. They need to go to the next step - go out and witness so that people are brought into the kingdom.  

Why is there so little power demonstrated?

On a personal level, why is there so little power in a believer's life for witnessing, for sharing the word of God, for holy living?  Don't use the cop out excuse that it is has been received by faith. The power that Peter had in Acts 2 was clearly evident. If there is no power from the Holy Spirit, you haven't been filled. I say this to the charismatics among us too. If there is no power to do God's work, you haven't receive it despite your claim that you have received the baptism.

I think the modern mainstream churches have got it wrong. They have taught Christians that you have got everything that God has intended to give you at conversion. True, God has 'blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing' (Eph 1:3), but is it a reality in your life?   If that is true in your life, show me the evidence. Christianity is practical, not just wishful thinking.  If you can't show it, you haven't received it. And it is not possible to receive when there is no belief.   The excesses of extreme groups should not prevent us from seeking the truth.

Is it real?

How do you know what you receive is from God? Simple. The Holy Spirit is 'holy'.  Does your life exhibit purity and holiness when you say you have been filled by the Holy Spirit? If there is no evidence of greater holiness in your thoughts and heart, I'd say you may have a fake experience, or worse still, have a spirit that is not from God like what happened in the Toronto Blessing (remember people crawling on the ground like snakes, and barking like dogs. How blind can so many 'Christians' be)?  Tongues is not a sure fire proof. Do you know that other religions have also claimed that their followers can speak in tongues - some ghibberish, rather than a real language. 

In my opinion, the existence of the fake is a good indicator that the genuine exists.

Concluding remarks

If the baptism of the Holy Spirit is separate from conversion, then we must all go to God to ask Him to fill us. Why? So that we have power to do the works God has planned for us so that we can give Him glory. After all, we are vessels for Him to use with our limited time on earth.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is NOT for us to enjoy some mystical emotional feeling of joy - if this is what you're after, you won't receive it because you're asking for fleshly reasons. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is for us to do God's work as His witnesses - it is to do what God wants.  Remember some got killed preaching the gospel after they have received power from God!

Tell this to the masses who have been misled by many charismatic preachers to ask for the baptism of the Holy Spirit so that they will become super spiritual Christian. This is where I have issues with many charismatics - they ask the seeker to get the baptism for the sake of the experience, not for service.   See how we have turned this beautiful and holy gift from God into a carnal indulgence.  But let's not allow the presence of the false discourage us from seeking the true (sorry for being repetitive, my old age :-)

I have included a full extract of an article by John Piper on Martyn Lloyd Jones on this topic. If you wish to learn more, get hold of Lloyd Jones' book called 'Joy Unspeakable'.

There is another book 'The normal Christian birth' by David Pawson that is worth reading.

Original link is here

http://www.desiringgod.org/biographies/a-passion-for-christ-exalting-power

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Passion for Christ-Exalting Power

Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the Need for Revival and Baptism with the Holy Spirit

1991 Bethlehem Conference for Pastors

January 30, 1991

·         by John Piper

·         Topic: Christian Biography

·         Series: 1991 Conference for Pastors

Martyn Lloyd-Jones The Preacher

In July, 1959 Martyn Lloyd-Jones and his wife Bethan were on vacation in Wales. They attended a little chapel for a Sunday morning prayer meeting and Lloyd-Jones asked them, "Would you like me to give a word this morning?" The people hesitated because it was his vacation and they didn't want to presume on his energy. but his wife said, "Let him, preaching is his life" (see note 1). It was a true statement. In the preface to his powerful book, Preaching and Preachers, he said, "Preaching has been my life's work ... to me the work of preaching is the highest and the greatest and the most glorious calling to which anyone can ever be called (see note 2).

Many called him the last of the Calvinistic Methodist preachers because he combined Calvin's love for truth and sound reformed doctrine with the fire and passion of the eighteenth-century Methodist revival (see note 3). For thirty years he preached from the pulpit at Westminster Chapel in London. Usually that meant three different sermons each weekend, Friday evening, and Sunday morning and evening. At the end of his career he remarked, "I can say quite honestly that I would not cross the road to listen to myself preaching" (see note 4).

But that was not the way others felt. When J. I. Packer was a 22-year-old student he heard Lloyd-Jones preach each Sunday evening during the school year of 1948-1949. He said that he had "never heard such preaching." It came to him "with the force of electric shock, bringing to at least one of his listeners more of a sense of God than any other man" he had known (see note 5).

Many of us have felt this shock even through the written form of Lloyd-Jones' sermons. I recall very distinctly hearing George Verwer say at Urbana '67 that Lloyd-Jones' two volumes on the Sermon on the Mount were the greatest thing he had ever read. I bought the books and read them in the summer of 1968 between college and seminary. The impact was unforgettable. Not since I was a little boy sitting under the preaching of my father, had I been so moved by what J. I. Packer called "the greatness and weight of spiritual issues" (see note 6). This was the effect he has had, and continues to have on thousands. By some he was called simply the "greatest preacher this century" (see note 7).

A Sketch of His Life

His path to Westminster was unique. He was born in Cardiff, Wales, December 20, 1899. He moved to London with his family when he was 14 and went to Medical School St. Bartholomew's (teaching) Hospital where he received his M.D. in 1921 and became Sir Thomas Horder's chief clinical assistant. The well-known Horder described Lloyd-Jones as "the most acute thinker that I ever knew" (see note 8).

Between 1921 and 1923 he underwent a profound conversion. It was so life-changing that it brought with it a passion to preach that completely outweighed his call as a physician. He felt a deep yearning to return to his native Wales and preach. His first sermon there was in April 1925 and the note he sounded was the recurrent theme of his life: Wales did not need more talk about social action, it needed "a great spiritual awakening." This theme of revival and power and real vitality remained his lifelong passion (see note 9).

He was called as the pastor of Bethlehem Forward Movement Mission Church in Sandfields, Aberavon in 1926, and the next year married one of his former fellow medical students, Bethan Phillips on January 8. In the course of their life together they had two daughters, Elizabeth and Ann.

His preaching became known across Britain and in America. It was popular, crystal clear, doctrinally sound, logical and on fire. In 1937 he preached in Philadelphia and G. Campbell Morgan happened to be there. He was so impressed that he felt compelled to see Lloyd-Jones as his associate at Westminster Chapel in London.

At the time Lloyd-Jones was being considered as the president of the Calvinistic Methodist College in Bala in North Wales. So he temporarily refused Westminster's call to be a permanent member of the staff. But the college turned him down. His main supporter on the board of the college had missed the train and couldn't support his call to the presidency. And so he accepted Westminster's call and stayed there 29 years until his retirement in 1968.

I can't help but pause and give thanks for the disappointments and reversals and setbacks in our lives that God uses to put us just where he wants us. How different modern Evangelicalism in Britain would have been had Martyn Lloyd-Jones not preached in London for 30 years. How different my own life may have been had I not read his sermons in the summer of 1968! Praise God for missed trains and other so-called accidents!

Lloyd-Jones and G. Campbell Morgan were joint ministers until Morgan's retirement in 1943. Then Lloyd-Jones was the sole preaching pastor for almost 30 years. In 1947 the Sunday morning attendance was about 1,500 and the Sunday evening attendance 2,000 as people were drawn to the clarity and power and doctrinal depth of his preaching. He wore a somber black Geneva gown and used no gimmicks or jokes. Like Jonathan Edwards two hundred years before, he held audiences by the sheer weight and intensity of his vision of truth.

He became ill in 1968 and took it as a sign to retire and devote himself more to writing. He continued this for about twelve years and then died peacefully in his sleep on March 1, 1981.

Revival Is a Baptism of the Holy Spirit

From the beginning to the end the life of Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a cry for depth in two areas—depth in Biblical doctrine and depth in vital spiritual experience. Light and heat. Logic and fire. Word and Spirit. Again and again he would be fighting on two fronts: on the one hand against dead, formal, institutional intellectualism, and on the other hand against superficial, glib, entertainment-oriented, man-centered emotionalism. He saw the world in a desperate condition without Christ and without hope; and a church with no power to change it. One wing of the church was straining out intellectual gnats and the other was swallowing the camels of evangelical compromise or careless charismatic teaching (see note 10). For Lloyd-Jones the only hope was historic, God-centered revival.

What I would like to do with you this morning is meditate on the meaning of revival in Lloyd-Jones' preaching—or more specifically, I want to understand what sort of power he was seeking, and what he expected it to look like when it came, and how he thought we should seek it (see note 11).

Lloyd-Jones has done more than any other man in this century, I think, to restore the historic meaning of the word revival.

A revival is a miracle ... something that can only be explained as the direct ... intervention of God ... Men can produce evangelistic campaigns, but they cannot and never have produced a revival (see note 12).

But for Lloyd-Jones it was a great tragedy that the whole deeper understanding of revival, as a sovereign outpouring of the Holy Spirit, had been lost by the time he took up the subject in 1959 at the 100th anniversary of the Welsh Revival. "During the last seventy, to eighty years," he said, "this whole notion of a visitation, a baptism of God's Spirit upon the Church, has gone" (see note 13).

He gave several reasons why (see note 14). But he says that the most important theological reason for the prevailing indifference to revival was the view that the Holy Spirit was given once for all on the Day of Pentecost, so that He cannot be poured out again, and prayer for revival is therefore wrong and needless (seen note 15). This is where Lloyd-Jones begins to part ways with some standard evangelical interpretations of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He emphatically rejected the common view that equates the spiritual baptism of Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12:13. He describes the view he rejects like this:

Yes, [Acts 2] was the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But we all get that now, and it is unconscious, we are not aware of it, it happens to us the moment we believe and we are regenerated. It is just that act of God which incorporates us into the Body of Christ. That is the baptism of the Spirit. So it is no use your praying for for some other baptism of the Spirit, or asking God to pour out His Spirit upon the church ... It is not surprising that, as that kind of preaching has gained currency, people have stopped praying for revival" (see note 16).

When a reformed theologian like Klaas Runia opposed Pentecostalism, Lloyd-Jones agreed that the insistence on tongues and the "claiming" of gifts was wrong, but he was just as disturbed by Runia's concept of the baptism of the Spirit. He wrote to him and said,

I still feel that you really do not allow for revival. You show this where you say, "Read all the passages that speak of the Holy Spirit and the Church. It is always: Become what you are, ALL of you." If it is simply a question of "Become what you are" and nothing more, then how can one pray for revival, and indeed how does one account for the revivals in the history of the church (see note 17)?

Revival is when the Spirit comes down, is poured out. Lloyd-Jones is crystal clear on how he thinks baptism with the Holy Spirit relates to regeneration.

Here is the first principle ... I am asserting that you can be a believer, that you can have the Holy Spirit dwelling in you, and still not be baptized with the Holy Spirit ... The baptism of the Holy Spirit is something that is done by the Lord Jesus Christ not by the Holy Spirit ... Our being baptized into the body of Christ is the work of the Spirit [that's the point of 1 Cor. 12:13], as regeneration is his work, but this is something entirely different; this is Christ's baptizing us with the Holy Spirit. And I am suggesting that this is something which is therefore obviously distinct from and separate fro becoming a Christian, being regenerate, having the Holy Spirit dwelling within you (see note 18).

He laments that by identifying the baptism of the Holy Spirit with regeneration the whole thing is made non-experimental and unconscious. This is not the way it was experienced in the books of Acts (see note 19). So he spoke with strong words about such a view:

Those people who say that [baptism with the Holy Spirit] happens to everybody at regeneration seem to me not only to be denying the New Testament but to be definitely quenching the Spirit" (see note 20).

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit Gives Exceptional Assurance and Joy

He believes that this view discourages us from seeking what the church so desperately needs today. "The greatest need at the present time," he says, "is for Christian people who are assured of their salvation" —which is given in a special way through the baptism of the Holy Spirit (see note 21). He distinguishes between the "customary assurance" of the child of God, and what he calls "unusual assurance" (see note 22) or "full assurance" (see note 23) that comes with the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

When Christians are baptized by the Holy Spirit, they have a sense of the power and presence of God that they have never known before —and this is the greatest possible form of assurance (see note 24).

The baptism of the Spirit is a new fresh manifestation of God to the soul. You have an overwhelming knowledge given to you of God's love to you in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ ... This is the greatest and most essential characteristic of the baptism with the Spirit (see note 25). It is experiential. It is undeniable. There is an immediacy that goes beyond ordinary experience. It fills with overwhelming joy (see note 26). It turns advocates of Christ into witnesses of what they have seen and heard (see note 27).

He illustrates the difference between steady-state, customary Christian experience and the experience of baptism with the Spirit by telling a story from Thomas Goodwin.

A man and his little child [are] walking down the road and they are walking hand in hand, and the child knows that he is the child of his father, and he knows that his father loves him, and he rejoices in that, and he is happy in it. There is no uncertainty about it all, but suddenly the father, moved by some impulse, takes hold of the child and picks him up, fondles him in his arms, kisses him, embraces him, showers his love upon him, and then he puts him down again and they go on walking together.

That is it! The child knew before that his father loved him, and he knew that he was his child. But oh! the loving embrace, this extra outpouring of love, this unusual manifestation of it—that is the kind of thing. The Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are the children of God" (see note 28).

When Jesus baptizes a person with the Holy Spirit, Lloyd-Jones says, the person is "carried not only from doubt to belief but to certainty, to awareness of the presence and the glory of God (see note 29).

This is what Lloyd-Jones means by revival:

The difference between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and a revival is simply one of the number of people affected. I would define a revival as a large number, a group of people, being baptized by the Holy Spirit at the same time; or the Holy Spirit falling upon, coming upon a number of people assembled together. It can happen in a district, it can happen in a country (see note 30).

Baptism With the Holy Spirit is an Authentication of the Gospel

And when it happens it is visible. It is not just a quiet subjective experience in the church. Things happen that make the world sit up and take notice. This is what was so important to Lloyd-Jones. He felt almost overwhelmed by the corruption of the world and the weakness of the church. And believed that the only hope was something stunning.

The Christian church today is failing, and failing lamentably. It is not enough even to be orthodox. You must, of course, be orthodox, otherwise you have not got a message ... We need authority and we need authentication ... Is it not clear that we are living in an age when we need some special authentication—in other words, we need revival (see note 31).

So revival, for Lloyd-Jones was a kind of power demonstration that would authenticate the truth of the gospel to desperately hardened world. His description of that world from 25 years ago sounds amazingly current:

We are not only confronted by materialism, worldliness, indifference, hardness, and callousness—but we are also hearing more and more ... about certain manifestations of the powers of evil and the reality of evil spirits. It is not merely sin that is constituting a problem in this county today. There is also a recrudescence of black magic and devil worship and the powers of darkness as well as drug taking and some of the things it leads to. This is why I believe we are in urgent need of some manifestation, some demonstration, of the power of the Holy Spirit (see note 32).

He cautions that we must not think only of revival. He warns against being too interested in the exceptional and unusual. Don't despise the day of small things, he says. Don't despise the regular work of the church and the regular work of the Spirit (see note 33).

But I get the distinct impression that Lloyd-Jones was increasingly disillusioned with the "regular" and the "customary" and the "usual" as his ministry came to a close at Westminster. Doesn't it sound like that when he says,

[We] can produce a number of converts, thank God for that, and that goes on regularly in evangelical churches every Sunday. But the need today is much too great for that. The need today is for an authentication of God, of the supernatural, of the spiritual, of the eternal, and this can only be answered by God graciously hearing our cry and shedding forth again his Spirit upon us and filling us as he kept filling the early church (see note 34).

What is needed is some mighty demonstration of the power of God, some enactment of the Almighty, that will compel people to pay attention, and to look, and to listen. And the history of all the revivals of the past indicates so clearly that that is invariably the effect of revival, without any exception at all. That is why I am calling attention to revival. That is why I am urging you to pray for this. When God acts, he can do more in a minute that man with his organizing can do in fifty years (see note 35).

What lies so heavily on Lloyd-Jones' heart is that the name of God be vindicated and his glory manifested in the world. "We should be anxious," he says, "to see something happening that will arrest the nations, all the peoples, and cause them to stop and think again" (see note 36). That is what the baptism of the Holy Spirit is all about.

The purpose, the main function of the baptism with the Holy Spirit, is ... to enable God's people to witness in such a manner that it becomes a phenomenon and people are arrested and are attracted (see note 37).

Now here is where spiritual gifts come in—things like healing and miracles and prophecy and tongues, the whole area of signs and wonders. Lloyd Jones is addressing power evangelism long before John Wimber.

He says that spiritual gifts are a part of the authenticating work of revival and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Extraordinary spiritual gifts, he says, result from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Then he says that this question is very important at the present time for this reason: "We need some supernatural authentication of our message" (see note 38).

Joel, and the other prophets who also spoke of it, indicated that in the age which was to come, and which came with the Lord Jesus Christ and the baptism with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, there should be some unusual authentication of the message (see note 39).

At this point reformed people get nervous because they feel that the power of the word of God is being compromised. Is not the gospel the power of God unto salvation? Is not the spoken word, empowered by the Holy Spirit, sufficient? "Jews demand signs, Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified ... the power of God ..." (1 Cor. 1:22-23).

Things are not that simple. And the issue here is not contemporary claims; the issue is that the Scripture show signs and wonders functioning in the New Testament along side the greatest preaching that will ever be. And evidently Peter and Paul and Stephen and Philip did not think that the attestation of signs and wonders compromised the integrity and power of the word of God (Mark 16:20; Acts 14:3; Heb. 2:4).

Lloyd-Jones is deeply impressed by this fact, and says, "If the apostles were incapable of being true witnesses without unusual power, who are we to claim that we can be witnesses without such power?" (see note 40). And when he said that , he did not just mean the power of the word. He meant the power manifest in extraordinary spiritual gifts. Here's the evidence:

[Before Pentecost the apostles] were not yet fit to be witnesses ... [They] had been with the Lord during the three years of his ministry. They had heard his sermons, they had seen his miracles, they had seen him crucified on the cross, they had seen him dead and buried, and they had seen him after he had risen literally in the body from the grave. These were men who had been with im in the upper room at Jerusalem after his resurrection and to whom he had expounded the Scriptures, and yet it is to these men he says that they must tarry at Jerusalem until they are endued with power from on high. The special purpose, the specific purpose of the baptism with the Holy Spirit is to enable us to witness, to bear testimony, and one of the ways in which that happens is through the giving of spiritual gifts (see note 41).

My own answer to the question how the power of the word and the authenticating function of signs and wonders fit together is this. The Bible teaches that the gospel preached is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:23). It also teaches that the demand for signs in the presence of God's word is the mark of an evil and adulterous generation (Matt. 16:4; 1 Cor. 1:22). But the Bible also says that Paul and Barnabas "remained a long time [in Iconium] speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands" (Acts 14:3; cf. Heb. 2:4; Mark 16:20). So signs and wonders were God's attesting witness to the spoken word of the gospel.

Could we not then say, in putting all this together, that signs and wonders function in relation to the word of God, as striking, wakening, channels for the self-authenticating glory of Christ in the gospel? Signs and wonders do not save. They do not transform the heart. Only the glory of Christ seen in the gospel has the power to do that (2 Cor. 3:18-4:6). But evidently, God chooses at times to use signs and wonders along side his regenerating word to win a hearing and to shatter the shell of disinterest and cynicism and false religion, and help the fallen heart fix its gaze on the gospel (see note 42).

Martyn Lloyd-Jones Was Not a Warfieldian Cessationist

Clearly, from what we have seen, Lloyd-Jones was not what we call a cessationist. In fact he came out very strongly against the Warfield kind of cessationism. In 1969 he wrote against "A Memorandum on Faith Healing" put out by the Christian Medical Fellowship in England which relied explicitly on Warfield's arguments that the sign gifts (like healing) were "accompaniments of apostleship" and therefore invalid for today since the apostles were once for all.

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 (seen note 43).

When he speaks of the need for revival power and for the baptism of the Spirit and for a mighty attestation for the word of God today, it is clear that he has in mind the same sort of thing that happened in the life of the apostles.

It is perfectly clear that in New Testament times, the gospel was authenticated in this way by signs, wonders and miracles of various characters and descriptions ... Was it only meant to be true of the early church? ... The Scriptures never anywhere say that these things were only temporary—never! There is no such statement anywhere (see note 44).

He deals with the cessationist arguments and concludes that they are based on conjectures and arguments from silence in order to justify a particular prejudice (see note 45). "To hold such a view," he says, "is simply to quench the Spirit" (see note 46).

Beyond that he says that there is good historical evidence that many of these gifts persisted for several centuries, and that they have been manifested from time to time since the Reformation. For example, he credits the record of John Welsh, the son-in-law of John Knox for having done many amazing things and actually raising someone from the dead. And there is evidence from Protestant Reformers that some had a genuine gift of prophecy. For example he says that Alexander Peden, one of the Scottish Covenanters, gave accurate literal prophecies of things that subsequently took place (see note 47).

Martin Lloyd-Jones' Personal Experiences of Unusual Power

Lloyd-Jones had enough extraordinary experiences of his own to make him know that he had better be open to what the sovereign God might do. For example, Stacy Woods describes the physical effect of one of Lloyd-Jones' sermons.

In an extraordinary way, the presence of God was in that Church. I personally felt as if a hand were pushing me through the pew. At the end of the sermon for some reason or the other the organ did not play, the Doctor went off into the vestry and everyone sat completely still without moving. It must have been almost ten minutes before people seemed to find the strength to get up and, without speaking to one another, quietly leave the Church. Never have I witnessed or experienced such preaching with such fantastic reaction on the part of the congregation (see note 48).

Another illustration comes from his earlier days at Sandfields. A woman who had been a well-known spirit-medium attended his church one evening. She later testified after her conversion:

The moment I entered your chapel and sat down on a seat amongst the people, I was conscious of a supernatural power. I was conscious of the same sort of supernatural power I was accustomed to in our spiritist meetings, but there was one big difference; I had the feeling that the power in your chapel was a clean power" (see note 49).

Several times in his life he had a kind of prophetic premonition that went beyond the ordinary. On January 19, 1940 he wrote to the wife of a friend, Douglas Johnson, who had suffered a coronary occlusion.

I have a very definite and unmistakable consciousness of the fact of [Douglas'] complete and entire recovery. That kind of thing, as he will know, is not common with me. I report it because it is so very definite (see note 50).

This illustrates the point he makes about God's personal communication to his children. He gives Philip's being led to the chariot in Acts 8 and Paul and Barnabas being sent out in Acts 13 as Biblical examples of such direct communication from the Lord, then says,

there is no question but that God's people can look for and expect "leadings", "guidance", indications of what they are meant to do ... Men have been told by the Holy Spirit to do something; they knew it was the Holy Spirit speaking to them; and it transpired that it obviously was his leading. It seems clear to me that if we deny such a possibility we are again guilty of quenching the Spirit (see note 51).

Lloyd-Jones knew from the Bible and from history and from his own experience that the extraordinary working of the Spirit defied precise categorization. He said, "the ways in which the blessing comes are almost endless. We must be careful lest we restrict them or lest we try to systematize them over much, or, still worse, lest we mechanize them" (see note 52).

Martin Lloyd-Jones' Criticisms of the Pentecostalism He Knew

These are remarkable teachings coming from the main spokesman for the reformed cause in Britain in the last generation. He helped found a publishing house (Banner of Truth Trust) that has consistently put forward cessationist, Warfield-like thinking on spiritual gifts. And lest you think Lloyd-Jones was a full-blown charismatic incognito let me mention some things that gave him balance and made him disenchanted with Pentecostals and charismatics as he knew them.

1. He insisted that revival have a sound doctrinal basis. And from what he saw there was a minimization of doctrine almost everywhere that unity and renewal were being claimed (see note 53). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth and revival will be shallow and short-lived without deeper doctrinal roots than the charismatic tree seems to have.

2. Charismatics put too much stress on what they do and not enough emphasis on the freedom and sovereignty of the Spirit, to come and go on his own terms. "Spiritual gifts," he says, "are always controlled by the Holy Spirit. They are given, and one does not know when they are going to be given" (see note 54).

You can pray for the baptism of the Spirit, but that does not guarantee that it happens ... It is in his control. He is the Lord. He is a sovereign Lord and he does it in his own time and in his own way (see note 55).

3. Charismatics sometimes insist on tongues as a sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit which of course he rejects.

It seems to be that the teaching of the Scripture itself, plus the evidence of the history of the church, establishes the fact that the baptism with the Spirit is not always accompanied by particular gifts (see note 56).

4. But even more often most charismatics claim to be able to speak in tongues whenever they want to. This, he argues is clearly against what Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:18, "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all." If he and they could speak in tongues any time they chose, then there would be no point in thanking God that the blessing of tongues is more often given to him than to them (see note 57).

5. Too often, experiences are sought for their own sake rather than for the sake of empowerment for witness and for the glory of Christ (see note 58).

The aim is not to have experiences in themselves but to empower for outreach and making Christ known (see note 59) ...

We must test anything that claims to be a movement of the Spirit in terms of its evangelistic power (see note 60) ...

The supreme test of anything that claims to be the work of the Holy Spirit is John 16:14—"He shall glorify me" (see note 61).

6. Charismatics can easily fall into the mistake of assuming that if a person has powerful gifts that person is thus a good person and is fit to lead and teach. This is not true. Lloyd-Jones is aware that baptism with the Holy Spirit and the possession of gifts does not certify one's moral fitness to minister or speak for God. The spiritual condition at Corinth, in terms of sanctification, was low and yet there was much evidence of divine power.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit is primarily and essentially a baptism with power ... [But] there is no direct connection between the baptism with the Holy Spirit and sanctification (see note 62) ... It is something that can be isolated, whereas sanctification is a continuing and a continuous process (see note 63).

7. Charismatics characteristically tend to be more interested in subjective impressions and unusual giftings than in the exposition of Scripture. Be suspicious, he says, of any claim to a "fresh revelation of truth" (see note 64). (In view of what he said above concerning how the Holy Spirit speaks today in guidance, he cannot mean here that all direct communication from God is ruled out.)

8. Charismatics sometimes encourage people to give up control of their reason and to let themselves go. Lloyd-Jones disagrees. "We must never let ourselves go" (see note 65). A blank mind is not advocated in the Scriptures (see note 66). The glory of Christianity is what we can "at one and the same time ... be gripped and lifted up by the Spirit and still be in control" (see 1 Cor. 14:32) (see note 67). We must always be in a position to test all things, since Satan and hypnotism can imitate the most remarkable things (see note 68).

Martin Lloyd-Jones' Warnings to Spirit-Quenching Formalists

But having said all that, by way of warning and balance, Lloyd-Jones comes back to the strong affirmation of openness to the supernatural demonstration of power that the world needs so badly. Of those who sit back and point their finger at the charismatic excesses of good people he says, "God have mercy upon them! God have mercy upon them! It is better to be too credulous than to be carnal and to be smug and dead" (see note 69).

He even describes how many people quench the Spirit through fear of the unusual or supernatural.

This has often happened: in a meeting ... you begins to be afraid as to what is going to happen and to say, "If I do this what will take place?" That is quenching the Spirit. It is resisting his general movement upon your spirit. You feel his gracious influence, and then you hesitate and are uncertain or you are frightened. That is quenching the Spirit (see note 70).

Certain people by nature are afraid of the supernatural, of the unusual, of disorder. You can be so afraid of disorder, so concerned about discipline and decorum and control, that you become guilty of what the Scripture calls "quenching the Spirit" (see note 71).

How Does Lloyd-Jones Counsel Us to Seek the Baptism of the Spirit?

This is all very remarkable it seems to me. Lloyd-Jones' vision of Spirit-baptized life is a different Biblical synthesis than exists in the evangelical church or the charismatic movement. One my very legitimately ask if he is unwittingly articulating an agenda for the so-called Third Wave of the Spirit.

So in my mind there is a real sense of urgency in asking, "What is his counsel to us as we navigate between uncritical, and unbiblical gullibility on the one side and Spirit-quenching resistance on the other?"

His basic counsel is this: "You cannot do anything about being baptized with the Spirit except to ask for it. You cannot do anything to produce it" (see note 72). Nevertheless you should labor in prayer to attain it (see note 73). We must be patient (see note 74) and not set time limits on the Lord. He cites Dwight L. Moody and R.A. Torrey and A.J. Gordon and A.T. Pierson as ones who sought the baptism of the Spirit pleading for a long time (see note 75). In fact Lloyd-Jones had a special liking for Moody's repeated prayer: "O God, prepare my heart and baptize me with the Holy Ghost power" (see note 76).

But is seems that there is more that we can do than only pray. If a prepared heart is important then there are means of grace besides prayer that cleanse the heart and conform it more and more to Christ. One thinks of meditation on the Scriptures and exhortation from fellow Christians and mortification of sin along the lines of Romans six and so on.

But not only that, Lloyd-Jones teaches that the Spirit can be quenched by certain forms of barren institutionalization. Concerning the deadness of formal churches he says,

It is not that God withdrew, it is that the church in her "wisdom" and cleverness became institutionalized, quenched the Spirit, and made the manifestations of the power of the Spirit well-nigh impossible (see note 77).

Now that is a powerful statement from one who believes in the sovereignty of the Spirit—that certain forms of institutionalization can make the manifestations of the Spirit's power "well-nigh impossible." If the Spirit in his sovereignty suffers himself to be hindered and quenched, as Lloyd-Jones (and the apostle Paul!) says, then it is not entirely accurate to say that there is nothing we can do to open the way for his coming. It is only that we cannot constrain him to come. Or to put it another way, while it seems we cannot make the Spirit come in power, we can do things that usually keep him from coming.

Did He Practice What He Preached?

This leads to one final crucial question that gets right to the heart of the issue of application: Did Lloyd-Jones practice what he preached? Or to ask it another way, "Did he make way for the Spirit, or did he possibly and partially quench the Spirit in his own church (see note 78)?

In view of what he said about certain forms of institutionalization that make the manifestation of the Spirit's power "well-nigh impossible", we should ask whether there were forms of institutionalization at Westminster Chapel that hindered the manifestation of the Spirit? And if certain kinds of "institutionalization" can quench the Spirit, one wonders if certain uses of music and certain forms of service and kinds of attitude and personality do not hinder Him as well.

There are at least five aspects of life at Westminster chapel that make me wonder if Lloyd-Jones practically followed through on his revival principles.

1. His biographer, Iain Murray says that the "experience meetings" of the 18th century had disappeared in the churches of England and there was need for change (see note 79). But did Lloyd-Jones make significant changes that gave any real open context for the exercise of the spiritual gifts? Iain Murray tells us that the audience in Westminster Chapel was an anonymous group of listeners. "These were days when strangers did not commonly greet one another in church" (see note 80).

One wonders if Lloyd-Jones took significant steps to turn that tide. Did he labor, for example, to create a small group network in his church where people could minister to one another in a context perhaps less institutionally restrictive on the Spirit (see note 81).

2. He said, "I never trained a single convert how to approach others but they did so ... (see note 82)." Is this typical of his distance from practical hands-on interaction with his people at a level where their participation could be encouraged?

Did Lloyd-Jones really seek the kind of involvement with his people through which the manifestations like those that came through the apostles could flow? The apostles had significant hands-on ministry it seems. Without involvement from the pastor and some risk-taking on his part one can hardly expect the people to take steps to avoid quenching the Spirit, especially when they regularly hear overwhelming and austere cautions about charismatic excesses. Ordinary people interpret long and complex warnings and cautions as a red light on new experience.

3. His grandson, Christopher Catherwood says, "He had a special dislike for certain kinds of emotive music" (see note 83). And he himself said,

[The Spirit] does not need ... our help with all our singing and all our preliminaries and working up of emotions ... If the Spirit is Lord—and he is—he does not need these helps, and anything that tries to help the Spirit to produce a result is a contradiction of New Testament teaching (see note 84).

This dislike for emotive music and the so called "preliminaries" of the worship service seems to show an austere and suspicious attitude toward emotion and the music that may evoke it for the common people. This could have easily acted as an inhibition on the freedom of the congregation to express the joy of the Holy Spirit.

Could not music be in the same category as the reading of a good book, which Lloyd-Jones said was a perfectly legitimate aid in stirring up the emotions to desire more of the Spirit (see note 85)? Only music would seem to be even more legitimate, since it not only helps to stir up holy desire, but also gives vent to true expressions of desire and love. Not only that, music would seem to have more Biblical warrant as an aid in seeking the fullness of God in worship (cf. Eph. 5:19) (see note 86).

4. He seemed not to be willing to be involved in the nitty gritty of cultivating a prayer movement. I am not sure of this but Murray records a really surprising observation from 1959: "A few in 1959 were so absorbed with revival that they organized all-night prayer meetings and looked for ML-J's support. They did not get it" (see note 87). Yet he was known to pray for extended time with some (see note 88). Did he really live out his principle that the one thing you can do with zeal and labor to seek a revival is to pray for it?

5. Did he ever come to terms with 1 Cor. 14:1? "Make love your aim and earnestly desire spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy." How can this be squared with the following statement?

It is always right to seek the fullness of the Spirit—we are exhorted to do so. But the gifts of the Spirit are to be left in the hands of the Holy Spirit himself (see note 89).

1 Corinthians 14:1 specifically says to seek not just fullness in general, but the gifts of the Spirit in particular. So Lloyd-Jones' statement seems to say the opposite. Was this attitude to the gifts a kind of quenching of the manifestation of power? Again he says,

We must not seek phenomena and strange experiences. What we must seek is the manifestation of God's glory and his power and his might ... We must leave it to God, in his sovereign wisdom, to decide whether to grant these occasional concomitants or not (see note 90).

Surely he is right that we must not be preoccupied with the outer forms of things—like bodily healing instead of spiritual life. But could the apostles really have prayed without expressing longing for the signs and wonders which proved so helpful in attesting to the word of grace (Act 14:3; Heb. 2:4; Mark 16:20)? Did they in fact not pray in Acts 4:30 that God would perform signs and wonders and specifically that he would stretch out his hand to heal? And Lloyd-Jones himself says that the phenomena are extremely valuable and needed.

"Does it not seem clear and obvious that in this way God is calling attention to himself and his own work by unusual phenomena? There is nothing that attracts such attention as this kind of thing, and it is used of God in the extension of his kingdom to attract, to call the attention of people (see note 91).

Surely in view of 1 Corinthians 14:1 and Acts 4:30 and Lloyd-Jones' own estimation of the gifts and phenomena of the Spirit, the answer is not to forsake praying for signs and wonders but to make it a matter of right motive (see note 92) and good balance with all the other important things in Scripture.

That balance and motive are fairly well expressed in one of his many beautiful closing exhortations, and I use it to close this message:

Let us together decide to beseech him, to plead with him to do this again. Not that we may have the experience or the excitement, but that his mighty hand may be known and his great name may be glorified and magnified among the people (see note 93).

Notes:
1. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1990), 373.
2. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971), p. 9.
3. Christopher Catherwood, Five Evangelical Leaders, (Wheaton: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1985), p. 55.
4. Preaching and Preachers, p. 4.
5. Five Evangelical Leaders, p. 170.
6. J. I. Packer, Introduction: Why Preach?, in: The Preacher and Preaching, ed. by Samuel T. Logan Jr., (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1986), p. 7. This is Packer's assessment of the impact Lloyd-Jones had.
7. Five Evangelical Leaders, p. 71.
8. Five Evangelical Leaders. p. 56.
9. Five Evangelical Leaders, p. 66; The Sovereign Spirit, p. 11.
10. The Sovereign Spirit, pp. 55-57.
11. My primary sources have been Iain Murray's new two volume biography, his sermons on Revival given in 1959 and published by Crossway in 1987, and the two most controversial books, Joy Unspeakable and The Sovereign Spirit containing twenty-four sermons preached between November 15, 1964 and June 6, 1965, and published by Harold Shaw in this country in 1984 and 1985. A shorter summary of Lloyd-Jones' life, written by his grandson Christopher Catherwood, is found in Five Evangelical Leaders(Harold Shaw, 1985.
12. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Revival, (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1987), pp. 111-112.
13. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 385.
14. He mentions 1) a resting in orthodoxy and negligence of true spiritual life; 2) an over concern with apologetics in answering Modernism; 3) a dislike for emotion and an excessive reaction against Pentecostalism; 4) a misunderstanding of the Puritan emphasis on the individual soul; and the confusion of revivals (which is a sovereign work of God) with evangelistic crusades (which are organized by men, as Charles Finney worked out so fully). Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 385.
15. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 386.
16. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 386.
17. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 691.
18. Joy Unspeakable, p. 21, 23. He also tells the stories of numerous people who recount a distinct event in their lives after conversion that corresponds to a baptism for power and unusual assurance. For example: John Flavel, Jonathan Edwards, Mood (pp. 79-80), John Wesley (pp. 62-63), John Howe, William Guthrie (pp. 103-105), Pascal (pp. 105-106), Aquinas (pp. 113).
19. "The baptism with the Holy Spirit is always something clear and unmistakable, something which can be recognized by the person to whom it happens and by others who look on at this person ... No man can tell you the moment when he was regenerated. Everybody is agreed about that—that regeneration is non-experimental."Joy Unspeakable, p. 52.
20. Joy Unspeakable, p. 141
21. Joy Unspeakable, p. 39.
22. Joy Unspeakable, p. 38.
23. Joy Unspeakable, p. 41.
24. Joy Unspeakable, p. 97.
25. Joy Unspeakable, p. 89-90.
26. "I am certain that the world outside is not going to pay much attention to all the organized efforts of the Christian church. The one thing she will pay attention to is a body of people filled with the spirit of rejoicing. That is how Christianity conquered the ancient world." Joy Unspeakable, p. 102.
27. Joy Unspeakable, p. 90.
28. Joy Unspeakable, p. 95-96.
29. Joy Unspeakable, p. 87.
30. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Joy Unspeakable, (Wheaton: harold Shaw Publishers, 1984), p. 51.
31. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 25.
32. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 25.
33. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 384.
34. Joy Unspeakable, p. 278.
35. Revival, pp. 121-122.
36. Revival, pp. 120.
37. Joy Unspeakable, p. 84. See The Sovereign Spirit, p. 17, 35, 120.
38. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 24.
39. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 26. He cites John 14:12 on this page as Jesus' own prophecy that what Joel had predicted would happen. The miracles of Jesus "were not only done as acts of kindness. The main reason for them was that they should be 'signs,' authentications of who he was." The point is that when believers do these signs, they will have the same function.
40. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 46.
41. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 120 (italics mine). Gifts are only "one of the ways" the baptism of the Spirit empowers for witness. "It is possible for one to be baptized with the Holy Spirit without having some of these special gifts." (p. 121)
42. But see below on Lloyd-Jones reluctance to encourage anyone to seek phenomena.
43. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 786. See also Joy Unspeakable, p. 246.
44. The Sovereign Spirit, pp. 31-32.
45. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 39.
46. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 46.
47. The Sovereign Spirit, pp. 44-45. See Alexander Smellie, Men of the Covenant, (London: Andrew Melrose, 1905), pp. 334-335, 384. Lloyd-Jones also refers to Robert Baxter and John Welsh as ones with foretelling gifts (p. 88).
48. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 377.
49. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982) p. 221.
50. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 45. He tells of another instance of prophetic certainty about the future: on the weekend of sunday, May 11, 1941 Lloyd-Jones was to preach at Westminster Chapel in the evening but not the morning. He had gone to preach that morning at the chapel of Mansfield College in Oxford. Early Sunday morning he was told that all of Westminster had been flattened by a German bombing raid and he may as well stay the night in Oxford. He said with amazing certainty that he would be preaching there that night. As they arrived there it stood with only two windows blown out in the midst of great rubble. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 16-17.
51. The Sovereign Spirit, pp. 89-90.
52. Joy Unspeakable, p. 243. Edward Payson received the blessing on his deathbed after seeking it all his life. Another strange instance is the case of David Morgan. "And so it was a hundred years ago in Northern Ireland and in Wales. I have mentioned a man called David Morgan, a very ordinary minister, just carrying on, as it were. Nobody had heart of him. He did nothing at all that was worthy of note. Suddenly this power came upon him and for two years, as I have said, he preached like a lion. Then the power was withdrawn and he reverted to David Morgan again" (Revival, p. 114).
53. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 687.
54. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 153.
55. Joy Unspeakable, pp. 77-78. He illustrates with Peter and John healing the man at the temple in Acts 3 (whom they had no doubt passed many times before), and with Paul in Philipi: "If the apostle permanently had the power of exorcism, why did he not deal with her the first day?" (The Sovereign Spirit, p. 155). This applies to all the gifts including tongues: "It is not something, therefore, that a man can do whenever he likes" (The Sovereign Spirit, p. 156)..
56. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 53. Lloyd-Jones says that it is a mistake to "confuse the baptism of the Spirit with the occasional gifts of the Spirit" (p. 117).
57. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 152.
58. He is aware that in 1 Corinthians the gifts are largely meant to edify the body of Christ. But he says, "Watch the order. It must start in the church, which is then empowered to witness and testify boldly of the Lord. The Holy Spirit is not given that we may have wonderful experiences or marvelous sensations within us, or even to solve psychological and other problems for us. That is certainly a part of the work of the Spirit, but it is not the primary object. The primary object is that the Lord may be known" (The Sovereign Spirit, p. 130).
59. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 693.
60. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 129-130.
61. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 106. See pp. 111 and 113 for the "Jesus is Lord" test.
62. Joy Unspeakable, p. 137. Yet he does say that there is an indirect connection between baptism with the Holy Spirit and sanctification. In baptism with the Holy Spirit we see the Lord more clearly and become more immediately sure of his reality and his glorious power. This sight of his glory usually functions as a kind of booster to the sanctification process. "His sanctification, everything about him, is stimulated in a most amazing and astonishing manner" (p. 144).
63. Joy Unspeakable, p. 140.
64. The Sovereign Spirit, pp. 77-79.
65. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 71. See p. 78..
66. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 72.
67. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 74. See pp. 151-158, "This is the glory of the way of the Holy Spirit—above understanding, and yet the understanding can still be used" (p. 158)..
68. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 66. In exercising our reason to test the spirits we must realize that it is not enough to say that a person loves Christ more because of the experience. One must go on testing their behavior and their doctrine by Scripture (p. 116).
69. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 83.
70. Joy Unspeakable, p. 206.
71. Joy Unspeakable, p. 18. Sometimes these fearful people will try to hinder the work of God's Spirit by accusing others of being divisive and proud, But Lloyd-Jones says that this is the way formalistic people have responded to the movement of God's Spirit often. It should not hinder the true work of God (The Sovereign Spirit, pp. 46-47).
72. Joy Unspeakable, p. 139.
73. Joy Unspeakable, p. 247. That also includes doing things that increase your desire for it. He specifically mentions reading (p. 228). But he does not see laying on of hands as appropriate for praying over someone that they receive the gifts, in spite of the Samaritans and Ananias etc. (pp. 188-189).
74. Joy Unspeakable, p. 231. "If you are in this position of seeking, do not despair, or be discouraged, it is he who has created the desire within you, and he is a loving God who does not mock you. If you have the desire, let him lead you on. Be patient. Be urgent and patient at the same time. Once he leads you along this line he will lead you to the blessing itself and all the glory that is attached to it."
75. Joy Unspeakable, p. 210.
76. Joy Unspeakable, p. 220. He adds, "It is dangerous to have power unless the heart is right; and we have no right to expect that the Spirit will give us the power unless he can trust us with it." Notice he does not say the Spirit won't give this power to immature and even unsanctified people. He already implied that the Spirit did ust that in Corinth when he was discussing sanctification above. One wonders if the same principle might apply to the degree of true doctrinal depth and breadth in a congregation. Could we say that wrong thinking and shallow doctrine give no warrant for expecting the blessing of Spirit baptism since he is the Spirit of truth. But perhaps, since he is free, this does not necessarily rule out the blessing either. It could be that the blessing might be given to stir up a congregation to go deeper in Scripture, and then withdrawn if they become more fascinated with phenomena than with the glory of God in the gospel. See above on point six in the discussion of his warnings about the charismatic movement.
77. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 50.
78. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, pp. 694-695.
79. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 693.
80. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 253.
81. The Chapel did not seem to experience significant growth. The membership was 828 in 1967. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 543.
82. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 707.
83. Five Evangelical Leaders, p. 72
84. The Sovereign Spirit, p. 137.
85. Joy Unspeakable, p. 228.
86. Preaching and Preachers, p. 183. He says, referring to the life of the preacher, "Music does not help everyone, but it greatly helps some people; and I am fortunately one of them ... Anything that does you good, puts you into a good mood or condition, anything that pleases you or releases tensions and relaxes you is of inestimable value. Music does this to some in a wonderful way."
87. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 384.
88. Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 372.
89. The Sovereign Spirit, p48.
90. Revival, p. 147.
91. Revival, p. 145.
92. Why do we desire these gifts? ... Our motive should always be to know him so that we may minister to his glory and to his praise. The Sovereign Spirit, p132.
93. Revival, p. 117.

©2013 Desiring God Foundation. Used by Permission.

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in its entirety or in unaltered excerpts, as long as you do not charge a fee. For Internet posting, please use only unaltered excerpts (not the content in its entirety) and provide a hyperlink to this page. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. ©2013 Desiring God Foundation. Website: desiringGod.org