Introduction
In this article, we will be considering the person of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, his theology of baptism in the Holy Spirit, and Pentecostalism and accepted interpretation of the baptism in the Spirit in the tradition of Assemblies of God movement. Of course, such consideration implies a short insight into Pentecostals’ general history and theology. Still, it also implies documents of the Assemblies of God about the doctrinal position on the issue of Spirit baptism.
We will try to cast light upon his contribution to the Pentecostal movement by consulting the primary literature of Martyn Lloyd-Jones and his theology on this topic. Although Martyn Lloyd-Jones belongs to a different Christian tradition (Reformed), his theology of the baptism in the Spirit will reveal how his views are similar and separate from the Pentecostal understanding of Spirit baptism. It is believed that Lloyd-Jones is a bridge between Reformed theology and evangelical Christians who are open to the second experience of the Spirit.1 This article will attempt to prove that by studying Lloyd-Jones and the Pentecostal practice and Pentecostal theology and the theology of Lloyd-Jones.
In Pentecostalism, there is a phenomenon of understanding the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a unique experience that does not have to happen ever again. Also, there is a compulsory emphasis on speaking in tongues as proof of baptism, which often leaves us deprived of seeking other gifts. Through this, one can often see the phenomenon of focusing on automatic speaking in tongues, which is said to be able to appear at any time. We will also try to prove that the Doctor (as he used to be called, so we will use the same title in this article) was, in fact, the closest to the Pentecostal understanding of the baptism in the Spirit, with some exceptions. The goal is to show the deeper connection which could, in the future, influence Pentecostals and all those who are open toward the second (or repeated) experience of the Spirit and want to benefit from Lloyd-Jones’ teachings.
1. Short Biography of Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Although many books have been written about Lloyd-Jones (1899–1986), not least of which the two-volume biography, The Life of Martyn Lloyd-Jones by Iain H. Murray, who was his assistant at Westminster Chapel for several years, as well as his long-term friend and approved biographer, his life was, in short, a historical phenomenon. Lloyd-Jones was born in Cardiff (Wales) and grew up in Llangeitho. His father was a grocer, and he had two brothers. The place where he grew up was where Daniel Rowland, the Welsh Methodist Calvinist, served, but it was also the site of the Welsh revival from the beginning of the 20th century. Although he had to move to London, Lloyd-Jones did not at first go into ministry, although he eventually, in his early youth, came to the Christian faith (Kay 2013, 275–276).
His adult life was characterized by his education at the famous hospital, St. Bartholomew, where he began work as the assistant to the Royal Physician, Sir Thomas Horder. Lloyd-Jones became a doctor but later refused to accept several honorary doctorates, believing that his MD title from the London University was enough. In the meantime, he married Bethan Phillips, a medical student. At 25, he left his career as a physician and became a diagnostician and pastor (doctor of souls) in Sandfields, Wales, where he witnessed a significant change in people’s lives. His approach was never degrading but afforded dignity to those who mostly belonged to the working class (Catherwood 2015, 23–26).
As his popularity spread, in 1935, he began his work at the InterVarsity Fellowship of Students (IFES), whose president he became in 1939. He encouraged evangelical students, teaching them how to think to hold on to their evangelical faith despite their professions. In addition, he urged both the highly educated and the industry workers, teaching them Christian principles and calling. Lloyd-Jones grew up surrounded by the Welsh revival from the beginning of the 20th century. Because of this Welsh heritage, his life was forever marked with the desire for a revival. Watching him teach in Philadelphia in 1938, G. Campbell Morgan invited him to serve as a preacher at Westminster Chapel. Although they had some theological differences, it was clear they were friends who respected each other. He continued working there as a pastor until 1968 when he retired. In the meantime, for many years he was the president of the IFES and the founder of the Puritan Conference, together with Jim Packer. An important point in his life and influence was his emphasis on evangelical unity that, he believed, should have been more visible despite denominational differences. In a speech from 1966, at an event of the National Evangelical Assembly, where those present included Baptists and Anglicans, he called for evangelical Christians to become a unified, visible body. However, the leader of the panel, John Stott, refuted him and publicly expressed his disagreement, claiming that Church history stands against Lloyd-Jones in this matter, making it clear that evangelical Christians never managed to create a denomination but have been the “remnant” within the Church (both in the Old and the New Testament).2 Nevertheless, the Doctor remained on good terms with Stott. However, in his opinion, evangelical Christians from doctrinally mixed denominations should gather together in a visible community of true believers (Catherwood 1985, 64–86).3 The rest of his life after 1968 and his diagnosis of illness, he remained working as the editor of his books, speaking at conferences and traveling to preach in different schools and churches (Kay 2013, 276).
2. Pentecostalism and the Assemblies of God
Pentecostalism was a part of the evangelical renewal movement that took place at the beginning of the 20th century. It was based on the belief in an experience known in the Scriptures as the “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” It is significant to note that Pentecostal Christians’ roots are mainly in Methodism, the Keswick movement, and the charismatic movements of the 19th century. The most significant initial “experience of Pentecostalism” occurred on Azusa Street in Los Angeles, where Christians were baptized in the Holy Spirit in their meeting, i.e., it was manifested (as in previous cases with Charles Fox Parham) in speaking in foreign tongues. The emphasis was on the fact that the initial sign of the baptism in the Holy Spirit was speaking in tongues. One of the groups (there were three, including the Unitarian group and the Baptist-Pentecostal) was the Assemblies of God, who emphasized two things, which are conversion and baptism in the Spirit confirmed by speaking in tongues (most had this in common).
Assemblies of God are a Pentecostal denomination (movement) that originated in 1914 in the United States. Initially, the founders came from different denominational backgrounds (Congregational and Presbyterian). Eventually, they agreed on the fundamental truths of Christianity, and in their documents, they explicitly declared their belief in the Holy Trinity, accepting Arminian theology. Assemblies of God hold to a full immersion baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In terms of sanctification, they believe in the progressive growth of Christians. This denomination is also very missional in its orientation (Britannica 2018). Today, more than 70 million believers are in the Assemblies of God (Carter 2021). This number is even higher today since the Assemblies of God is one of the fastest-growing churches in the Pentecostal movement.
The Pentecostal movement has quickly spread through all denominations as a movement of sanctification and the second experience of the Holy Spirit. It manifested itself similarly in different contexts and different countries, including Croatia. To understand Pentecostalism, it is vital to see that the Pentecostal experience is considered to be pointing toward Joel’s prophecy about the outpouring of the Spirit on everybody and that its purpose is sanctification, recognition of the lordship of Jesus Christ and conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment (Jambrek 2007, 283–285).
2.1. The Doctrinal Position of Assemblies of God
The most widespread Pentecostal group, called the Assemblies of God, under whose wing many churches have found their place, view the event, i.e., the phenomenon of baptism in the Spirit similar to the one described earlier. Of course, the doctrinal position is justified under the positional article “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” from 2010. With that document in mind, we will detect the main points of its teachings.
Generally speaking, several distinctions need to be mentioned concerning this subject, namely that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is such that “…(1) it is theologically and experientially distinguishable from and subsequent to the new birth, (2) it is accompanied by speaking in tongues, and (3) it is distinct in purpose from the Spirit’s work of regenerating the heart and life of a repentant sinner” (Baptism in the Holy Spirit 2010). Some other characteristics include that the baptism in the Spirit is seen as the event described in Acts 2 and that it is not the same as the baptism into the Body of Christ (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5). Other terms this position mentions are: “the Spirit coming,” or “falling,” or “upon" then “Spirit that is poured out,” “gift promised by the Father,” “gift of the Spirit,” “receiving of the Spirit,” and finally “being filled with the Spirit.” The latter does not point to the initial filling of the Spirit but constantly being and remaining filled with the Spirit (Baptism in the Holy Spirit 2010).
The Presbytery of the Assemblies of God emphasizes that baptism in the Spirit was promised in the Old Testament (referring to Ezek 36:25-27 and Joel 2:28-29). Still, it also highlights Luke’s pneumatology contained in Luke’s Gospel and Acts. According to the mentioned position, baptism in the Spirit always comes after regeneration, i.e., the believer’s new birth. However, the period between the two events is not always necessarily defined (Baptism in the Holy Spirit 2010).
When referring to the phenomenon of speaking in tongues in Acts 2, the positional document states that:
Three dramatic phenomena occurred: a violent wind, fire, and speaking in tongues. The wind and the fire, which in Scripture are symbols of the Holy Spirit, preceded the outpouring of the Spirit; but the phenomenon of speaking in tongues was an integral part of the disciples’ experience of Spirit baptism. The impetus for speaking in tongues was the Holy Spirit. The Greek verb apophthengomai at the end of verse 4 occurs again in verse 14 to introduce Peter’s speech to the crowd. It is an unusual and infrequently used word, and may be translated “to give inspired utterance” (Baptism in the Holy Spirit 2010).
Regarding the diversity of tongues4 in Acts and 1 Corinthians, it is crucial to bear in mind the following:
In Acts 2, the languages spoken by the disciples were unknown to them but were understood by others. They were human, identifiable languages. Luke says that the disciples spoke in other tongues – that is, languages not their own. However, in the other occurrences in Acts where speaking in tongues is mentioned (10:46; 19:6), there is no indication the languages were understood or identified. Paul’s writings imply that Spirit-inspired languages may not always be human, but may be spiritual, heavenly, or angelic (1 Cor 13:1; 14:2, 14) as a means of communication between a believer and God (Baptism in the Holy Spirit 2010).
The conclusion is that the baptism in the Spirit is accompanied by the initial speaking in tongues, i.e., that it is empirically related to the baptism in the Spirit. Also, Scripture never mentions the baptism in the Spirit without speaking in tongues, even when it says that not everyone speaks in tongues (1 Cor 12:30). This positional document claims that 1 Corinthians is sometimes used to prove that not everyone will speak in tongues when baptized in the Holy Spirit. However, according to the paper, one should pay attention to the context because it talks about the gift of speaking at a public worship service: “… both the broad context and the immediate context relate the question to the exercise of the gift in corporate worship, as noted by the question immediately following: ‘Not all interpret, do they?’ According to 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, only some believers are prompted by the Holy Spirit to give an utterance in tongues in a gathering of God’s people” (Baptism in the Holy Spirit 2010).
The following four things are important for the baptism in the Spirit: openness toward spiritual manifestations, righteous living (sanctification), power to witness, and speaking in tongues. For those who do not speak in tongues, and are therefore not baptized in the Spirit, the way to this phenomenon can be sought through prayer to God. According to the doctrinal statement: “With the baptism in the Holy Spirit come such experiences as an overflowing fullness of the Spirit (John 7:37–39; Acts 4:8), a deepened reverence for God (Acts 2:43; Heb 12:28), an intensified consecration to God and dedication to His work (Acts 2:42), and a more active love for Christ, for his Word, and for the lost (Mark 16:20)” (Baptism in the Holy Spirit 2010).
Observing these two topics, baptism in the Spirit and speaking in tongues, as well as the official confession of the majority of Pentecostals (this majority being the Assemblies of God), it can be surmised that, according to the historical period of classic spiritual experience, the doctrine did not change in a significant way, except that it perhaps established its foothold, experientially as well as doctrinally. According to the research statistics of the Center for the Study of Global Christianity in partnership with the Oral Roberts University and Empowered21, the Pentecostal movement today makes up 26% of today’s Christianity, i.e., around 664 million people in the world (Global Pentecostalism). Christianity Today also claims that Pentecostalism did not just spread across the globe but has also helped to deepen the faith of many Protestants to whose area it came (Randall 2021). The Pentecostal movement is no longer separate but deeply involved in the evangelical world of Protestantism. Its contribution is an offering of a deepening experience with God by emphasizing baptism in the Spirit.
3. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and the Baptism in the Spirit
Although Martyn Lloyd-Jones is often mentioned and referred to in Reformed circles, his influence is very well portrayed in the short biography Martyn Lloyd-Jones: His Life and Relevance for the 21st Century, written by his grandson Christopher Catherwood. While Lloyd-Jones says about himself:
I am a Calvinist; I believe in election and predestination; but I would not dream of putting it under the heading of essential. I put it under the heading of non-essential… While I myself hold very definite and strong views on the subject, I will not separate from a man who cannot accept and believe the doctrines of election and predestination, and is Arminian, as long as he tells me that we are all saved by grace, and as long as the Calvinist agrees, as he must, that God calls all men everywhere to repentance. As long as both are prepared to agree about these things I say we must not break fellowship. So I put election into the category of non-essentials (Lloyd-Jones 1989, 352).
This is very important to observe because, although Lloyd-Jones was a well-known expositor of Scripture who favorited the Puritans (who were in favor of Calvinist theology), his position is not rigid in the sense that he sets himself apart from those who do not see things his way. Therefore, looking at Lloyd-Jones, we should not see someone who is closed off in his opinions but someone who is open regarding the most critical questions. For him, baptism in the Spirit was not essential but had its place. That it indeed had its place can be observed in his expressed regret for those who do not see the baptism in the Spirit: “… those people who say that it happens to everybody at regeneration seem to me not only to be denying the New Testament but to be definitely quenching the Spirit. Regeneration is unconscious, non-experimental; but the baptism with the Holy Spirit is essentially experimental” (Lloyd-Jones 1984, 141).
While we continue to talk about his theology of the baptism in the Spirit, we need to mention that it began in the 1950s. Two books that are crucial for his theology of the baptism in the Spirit are Joy Unspeakable and Sovereign Spirit, and they have characterized the posthumous influence of Lloyd-Jones on evangelical Christianity. In his Introduction to Joy Unspeakable, Christopher Catherwood describes the following situation:
By the time in the mid-1950s that he himself came to preach on Ephesians, he had changed his mind. He still rejected perfectionism – indeed continued to do so till his death – but now felt that it was evident from Scripture that the sealing of the Spirit was indisputably separate from conversion. He read many Puritans and discovered that they testified, both from Scripture and from their own experience, that the two events were not necessarily simultaneous in the Christian’s life. The Christian should not just believe the truth and know it, the Puritans felt, but have a day-to-day living experience of it – what they called “experimental” truth (Lloyd-Jones 1984, 12–13).
3.1. The Sealing of the Spirit is the Baptism of the Spirit
For Lloyd-Jones, the experience of the first Christians was essential and unique. He believes that the Scriptures clearly show that, before these Christians had any books of the New Testament, they had the experience of the Spirit. We cannot read the epistles without seeing the implication of the Spirit coming down on believers and how that same thing was held on to in the history of the Church. For him, the sealing, present in 2 Corinthians 1:22, Ephesians 1:13, and Ephesians 4:30, was the same as the baptism of the Spirit. Lloyd-Jones denies that this represents the process of sanctification but claims that it is very similar to what is seen in Ephesians 1:13, which is preceded by faith. He considers Charles Hodge and Charles Simeon and ponders their views that sealing is a more exalted status of satisfaction and assurance kept for believers (Lloyd-Jones 1984, 71, 116, 146–150). Regarding the Christian experience of the Spirit in Romans 8:16, Lloyd-Jones says the following:
I suggest that this is a part of the “baptism with the Holy Ghost,” or, if you prefer it, the “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” That is why I referred to John 7:37 to 39 and Acts 2 and so on. Indeed I go further and say that what Paul is describing is the most essential aspect of “the baptism of the Holy Ghost.” We said, when dealing with verse 15, that the “Spirit of adoption” is a part of the baptism with the Holy Ghost without having the Spirit of adoption, but we can have the Spirit of adoption without knowing this further experience. That is why I say that the most vital and essential part, the essence, of being baptized with the Holy Ghost, is that we have this particular form of assurance of our sonship of God. I do not hesitate to say also that this is the same as the “sealing” of the Spirit (Lloyd-Jones 1974, 300).
For Lloyd-Jones, having the Spirit is not the same as the experience of the descent of the Holy Spirit, whose purpose is obviously to remind us of the love of God the Father, i.e., the sonship we have in him. In other words, Lloyd-Jones emphasizes aspects of the function of baptism in the Spirit precisely in that direction, saying that it serves to bear witness regarding the sonship of God, God’s love. The sealing of the Spirit in his theology points to the verification of believers. He proves his thesis by saying that even Christ, who had the Spirit, was confirmed, i.e., verified by the Spirit, based on verses in John 6:25-27 (Lloyd-Jones 1984, 152, 155). He then goes further and says that the sealing of the Spirit is the same as the baptism in the Spirit:
In other words, I am suggesting to you that the sealing of the Spirit and the baptism with the Spirit are the same thing. These terms are synonymous but they are used, one here and one there, according to the immediate context. When it is purely a question of witness and testimony you get the term “baptism” used; but when it is put more in terms of our inheritance and the certainty that is given to us that we are the heirs of God, then the term “sealing” is used, and the term “earnest” elaborates the meaning a little further. The earnest and the sealing generally are found together for that reason (Lloyd-Jones 1984, 156–157).
While interpreting this text in Ephesians 1:13, it is difficult to discern the syntactical function of the participle pisteusantes in the aorist. Some translators render this as “having believed”, and others “believing”. Lloyd-Jones admits the validity of both translations. He does not make much of them precisely because the sealing is a continuation of the faith. He paraphrases Apostle Paul’s thought: “...you also having heard the message of the truth of the gospel, you have believed it, you have received it, and believing (or having believed) ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise. So that it leaves the meaning exactly the same. It is presumed and taken for granted that they have believed, they were already believers when they were sealed” (Lloyd-Jones 1984, 149).
Gordon Fee disagrees with this interpretation. He argues that praise to God is a teaching for the whole community, not individuals. Ephesians 1:13 refers not to individual converts but to the general receiving of the Spirit. This, according to Fee, does not refer to some subsequent receiving of the Spirit (Fee 1994, 670). On the other hand, D. A. Carson wrestles with the problem which the Doctor pointed out,5 which is, according to Lloyd-Jones, the need for an experience of the Spirit. Carson will say that this is why the Reformed community in Great Britain is divided. Since many things were published posthumously, it cannot always be thoroughly explained what Lloyd-Jones’s meant.
Nevertheless, Carson keeps praising Lloyd-Jones for giving attention to this topic.6 Carson also argues that those who advocate for a “second experience” do not always have a handle on the critical nuances of the Greek original (Carson 1987, 159). Finally, his biographer and assistant would disagree with Lloyd-Jones, believing that his two books, Joy Unspeakable and Sovereign Spirit, will only confuse people with seeking God and baptism in the Holy Spirit. Iain Murray points out that behind all that Lloyd-Jones says, there is an excellent desire to see people serve the church more effectively, which, in his opinion, was Lloyd-Jones’ primary goal (1990, 488–491). What should be pointed out is that the Doctor strongly emphasized that the sealing of the Spirit (baptism in the Spirit) should be asked for (prayed for, waited upon), i.e., one should know what one is asking of God, and while doing it, one should not exchange the blessings for the one who gives blessings – God himself (Lloyd-Jones 1978, 294–297).
3.2. Assurance of God’s Love, Strengthening, and Reality of God’s Presence
In his theology of the baptism in the Spirit, Lloyd-Jones touched on many aspects, most of which are described in his book, Joy Unspeakable, including sanctification, receiving of the Spirit, Church, Pentecost, and revival. Nevertheless, in all those subjects, he put a great deal of emphasis on the sealing, i.e., baptism in the Spirit, but also on its purpose of convincing us of God’s love in our hearts. Here Lloyd-Jones refers to Romans 5:5. He believes that baptism in the Spirit does not only include the sense of sealing or deposit but the sense of the feeling of God’s love. For God’s love, Lloyd-Jones looks parallelly at Romans 5:5, Ephesians 1:13, and 1 Peter 1:8. Since he considers the baptism in the Spirit to be experiential, he also thinks that it cannot be missed, that it is authentic: “... you can be a Christian, you can be a member of the body of Christ, you can be a part of this organism, without having received this baptism of power, without knowing this highest form of assurance, without having this overwhelming experience of the love of God shed abroad in your heart so that you rejoice with a joy unspeakable and full of glory” (Lloyd-Jones 1984, 180–181, 264).
For the Doctor, the love of God is assurance; it is “God’s love poured into our hearts,” the catalyst of courage and conviction in witnessing and preaching. Therefore, in Acts 1 and 2, the things are the same – baptism in the Spirit enables the power or strength to testify (Lloyd-Jones 1984, 260). John Piper aptly summarizes that the baptism in the Spirit, according to Lloyd-Jones, is, in fact, a matter of power and God’s presence which a person has never experienced before, and that it represents a superb form of assurance (1991). The Doctor’s stand on the question of power and the gifts of the Spirit is unambiguous; namely, he believes that the power is also manifested through the gifts of the Spirit:
In our consideration of this subject of baptism with the Holy Spirit, we have come to the point where we are considering the matter of spiritual gifts. The baptism with the Holy Spirit, as we have seen, is essentially designed for witness. Our Lord told the disciples, “Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high” (Luke 24:49), and then he tells them that they would be “witnesses unto him.” As they were they were not yet fit to be witnesses. Let us never forget that these words were uttered to the disciples who had been with our 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 the men who had been with him 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 (Lloyd-Jones 1985, 120).
Iain H. Murray’s biography shows that Lloyd-Jones has always been a man of the Word. However, today many are surprised that he believed in the baptism in the Spirit as the second or subsequent experience a Christian should seek (Murray 1990). He was in no way a cessationist.7 On the contrary, he believed that the early Church’s experiences apply to us today. His emphasis on this experience and the desire to see the Church renewed was always there in him. As a preacher hailing from Wales, the country that witnessed a revival at the beginning of the 20th century, he always longed to see the revival and the Church strengthened in its preaching through the power and strength of the divine person of the Holy Spirit (Piper 1991).
For the Doctor, a revival was the same as the baptism in the Spirit. For him, a revival is when several people are baptized at the same time in one area. Also, Martyn Lloyd-Jones often emphasized that sanctification is always an indirect work of the Spirit in the baptism of the Spirit. By this, he meant that it does not have a direct connection to our sanctification, as it has to do with equipping believers with the power to witness and experience God’s love. A believer baptized in the Holy Spirit will have a greater desire for loving God and being sanctified. Lloyd-Jones goes further and says that empowerment of the Spirit, i.e., being filled with the Spirit, can repeatedly happen, like in Acts 4, if it is needed for strength or new fulfillment of Christians (Lloyd-Jones 1984, 51, 65–80, 144, 245).
Two of his contemporaries, John Stott and James Dunn, advocated a different view of baptism in the Spirit. In his book, The Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit (1965), John Stott points out that baptism in the Spirit is baptism in the Body of Christ. On the other hand, James Dunn, in his Baptism in the Holy Spirit (1970), emphasizes forgiveness, acceptance, purification, and saving that happens at that moment. Lloyd-Jones thought they were quenching the Spirit, something he repeatedly claimed in Joy Unspeakable. He could not agree, so his responses answer approaches made in his time. Based on this, one can conclude that this kind of thinking could only have been found in people who were open toward the work of the Spirit, but mostly in Pentecostals with whom he was resonating already in his own time (Kay 2013, 275–294). It is impossible to conceive of the Christian ministry without this gift:
Let me emphasize this. This filling is an absolute necessity for true service. Even our Lord Himself did not enter upon His ministry until the Holy Spirit had descended upon Him. He even told the disciples, whom He had been training for three years, who had been with Him in the inner circle, who had seen His miracles and heard all His words, who had seen Him dead and buried and risen again, even these exceptional men with their exceptional opportunities, He told to stay where they were, not to start upon their ministry, not to attempt to witness to Him, until they had received the power which the Holy Spirit would give them (Lloyd-Jones 2003, 241).
3.3. The Gift of Speaking in Tongues
Since the Doctor was against those who said that baptism in the Spirit was only the inclusion in the Body of Christ or identical to the baptism in the Body, his approach to speaking in tongues is such that he condemns those who oppose this gift and call it Satanic, and consider it is no longer applicable to us today:
I am amazed at some of the things I have read recently on the subject – certain Christian people have issued booklets and pamphlets, and in one of these the writer did not hesitate to say that “all speaking in tongues today is of the devil.” How a man ventures to make such a statement I simply cannot understand. I would not dare to do so. No, we must be very careful in all we say and we must be open in this matter. The Apostle tells us, “Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues” (1 Cor 14:39). We have already dealt with the argument that says this belonged only to the early church. If you once go along that line you will soon find that the New Testament has practically nothing to say to you at all, you will have to say that it was all for the early Church. But clearly, it is not – it is for us (Lloyd-Jones 1985, 143–144).
Besides being aware of the opposition, Lloyd-Jones does not acknowledge the Pentecostal position. He does not want his writing (i.e., preaching) to be just for those who know nothing about the subject but also for those who have these gifts but do not use them properly, by which he means those who hold the position that one can speak in tongues whenever one wishes to. Here he refers to Pentecostalism and all others who seek this gift. For Lloyd-Jones, the negative phenomenon of speaking in tongues can be the spiritist phenomenon from spirit summoning seances and also a psychological phenomenon. In the end, the biblical form of speaking in tongues can be an authentic sign of a believer. Observing the European Pentecostal Conference in Stockholm in 1939, Lloyd-Jones agreed with the conclusion that not everyone who is baptized in the Holy Spirit must speak in tongues. However, the Doctor could not accept the fact that the Pentecostal movement instructed everyone who has been baptized in the Holy Spirit that they have to speak in tongues (Lloyd-Jones 1985, 142–143, 145):
Now what is the teaching in Scripture with regard to speaking in tongues? In the first place, speaking in tongues is not the invariable accompaniment of the baptism of the Spirit. I put it like that because there is a teaching which has been current for a number of years and still is today, which says that speaking in tongues is always the initial evidence of the baptism with the Spirit. It therefore goes on to say that unless you have spoken in tongues you have not been baptized with the Holy Spirit. Now that, I suggest, is entirely wrong. In 1 Corinthians 12:30, the Apostle asks, “Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues?” Again in 1 Corinthians 14:5 he says, “I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied.” And when he says that he would that they all spake in tongues, he is clearly saying that they all did not. That, it seems to me, should be sufficient in and of itself (Lloyd-Jones 1985, 144).
This is the context in which we need to see Lloyd-Jones. His position stands opposite to the familiar Pentecostal position that all can speak in tongues and that tongues are always the initial proof of baptism in the Spirit. We have already explained the signs that indicate the result of baptism in the Spirit. They do not always indicate glossolalia or speaking in tongues, but point to the strength, the testimony of God’s love, and the assurance in him.
The next principle Lloyd-Jones grapples with is the well-known claim that everyone can initiate speaking in tongues independently. He does not say to who this refers, but we can assume he is thinking of the charismatic circles of his time. Here, Lloyd-Jones cannot agree with this, and arguing against it, he appeals to the miracles in Acts, which are always sudden, uncontrolled, unorganized by man, and always authentic. Lloyd-Jones believes that miracles, the same as tongues, cannot be an experiment, i.e., we cannot practice them. They happen by surprise, suddenly, and are always authentic. They are quite different from what we described earlier in the article. Then, appealing to 1 Corinthians 14:27-32, he claims that speaking in tongues was not irrational but a completely conscious experience. Finally, Lloyd-Jones affirms and encourages (1985, 151–158), but also explains this experience as conscious and mystical:
He is glorifying God, worshipping him, and magnifying him. He knows he is doing that, but he cannot identify the actual words that he is using. The whole thing is a mystery. . . This is not man’s natural faculties being heightened; this is a gift, something new, something which is given. And so the Apostle says that what happens when a man speaks in tongues is that the Spirit is controlling him, by-passing his understanding for the time being. Instead of it coming through the understanding to the tongue, it goes directly through the man’s spirit to the tongue (Lloyd-Jones 1985, 150–151).
The way Lloyd-Jones describes this event, and other gifts too, in his work, The Sovereign Spirit, is to encourage believers to seek that same gift without denying the reality of other gifts that come through the Spirit (1985, 158). He promotes, quotes, explains, and gives room for an authentic work of the Spirit through gifts, such as the gift of tongues.
Conclusion
Although many claim the Doctor as their own, Reformed Christians and groups on one side and Pentecostal and similar groups on the other, Lloyd-Jones was his own person. He never put much emphasis on his denominational affiliation except to identify himself as a Christian. He spoke in different churches, some more and some less open to the work of the Spirit. What is specific about him is that he called himself a biblical and not systematic Calvinist. By this, he meant that all his theology originated in the Scriptures. Catherwood says that although we must not agree with all his conclusions, we must agree with his method, which is that Scripture is always the basis for everything, and this pertains to the baptism in the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit as well. His view of the Sola Scriptura principle is in the ultimate sense proof of his method regarding the already mentioned topic. This makes him a biblical Calvinist – and not a systematic Calvinist (Catherwood 2015, 38–39).
Although Lloyd-Jones’ influence was significant even during his lifetime, especially in the context of the British Pentecostal movement and his friendship with people like Billy Richards and the Doctor’s heir, R. T. Kendall, it is essential to mention that this contribution is not limited to his context, but that it has its foothold in many other parts of the world, such as Brazil and its context of the rise of evangelical Christianity, where Reformed Pentecostals gather and identify with Lloyd-Jones’ teaching (Eekhoff Zylstra 2019). Therefore, it is important to conclude that Lloyd-Jones’ influence is not a locked or closed system relevant only to the past of British Pentecostalism or distant South America.
What Lloyd-Jones offers to the classical Pentecostalism of today (mentioned as a whole when we discussed the nature of Spirit baptism, gift of the tongues, and doctrinal practice) is an amendment to the understanding of the nature of the baptism in the Spirit, gift of the tongues and other gifts. Of course, standard Pentecostals would not agree on everything with the Doctor. Still, I believe there is room for a dialogue with Pentecostalism where one can go even deeper into the exegesis and exposition of the text explained by Lloyd-Jones. Although Pentecostalism emphasizes baptism in the Spirit and Spirit-filled life, Lloyd-Jones takes things much further, emphasizing the power of preaching while God’s assurance and love bear witness in one’s heart. For Lloyd-Jones, baptism in the Spirit is a need of every generation, and it can repeatedly happen, as in Acts 4. With his theological contribution, Lloyd-Jones can motivate Pentecostalism to further consider and think through the biblical correctness and foundation of the Pentecostal position and dialogue with other Christians. Pentecostalism could benefit from a different view of understanding the nature of repeated baptism in the Spirit, especially regarding tongues. Here, Lloyd-Jones agrees with Pentecostalism because he believes baptism in the Spirit represents the subsequent experience that can come upon a Christian after he has believed.
However, what distinguished Lloyd-Jones from others was precisely his belief that one can be filled (baptized) in the Spirit more than once during one’s lifetime and the way he understood the gift of tongues and its function. It is well known that Pentecostalism generally, albeit not universally, has its typical way of understanding the baptism in the Spirit and the gift of tongues that the believer can use anytime and anywhere.8 Here we already see a difference in interpreting the gift of the tongues as such because Lloyd-Jones disagrees with this, based on proof from Acts and 1 Corinthians. Here I would concur with the Doctor because the evidence goes directly against the practice that tongues can be spoken anywhere and can be had by anyone. I believe that this puts pressure on Pentecostal believers and can produce inauthentic experiences. One needs to be even more open toward all gifts, and as Lloyd-Jones says, one needs to be open to the Spirit and his sovereign work.
This article aims to invite a dialogue; to call for a different way of thinking about the interpretation of the baptism in the Holy Spirit and gifts of the Holy Spirit based on Scripture. As Catherwood points out, we cannot grasp Lloyd-Jones outside that principle. Nevertheless, Pentecostals can benefit from him by entering dialogue and considering the nature of his writing – that it serves to strengthen the Church. This can be bolstered by researching his biographical work – his life and his service. He was a man of the Word, one of the most famous evangelical preachers of the 20th century.
Nevertheless, Lloyd-Jones confirmed something that many today (such as John MacArthur, the late R. C. Sproul, and others) are skeptical about – that openness toward the Spirit in the context of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is compatible with Reformed theology. As such, it strengthens and balances the Christian testimony, where on one side we have the Spirit and on the other the Word – for Church to be strengthened in its witness and mission. Through this, his contribution to Pentecostalism remains an enriching one – through the balance of the Spirit and the Word.