Tag: Lloyd-Jones

Quotes to Note 22: Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Altar Calls

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

When asked if Scripture justifies the use of public invitations (altar calls) or not, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones responded quite directly.

“The invitation should be in the message. We believe the Spirit applies the message, so we trust in the power of the Spirit….

…I feel that this pressure which is put upon people to come forward in decision ultimately is due to a lack of faith in the work and operation of the Holy Spirit. We are to preach the Word, and if we do it properly, there will be a call to a decision that comes in the message, and then we leave it to the Spirit to act upon people. And of course He does. Some may come immediately at the close of the service to see the minister. I think there should always be an indication that the minister will be glad to see anybody who wants to put questions to him or wants further help. But that is a very different thing from putting pressure upon people to come forward. I feel it is wrong to put pressure directly on the will. The order in Scripture seems to be this – the truth is presented to the mind, which moves the heart, and that in turn moves the will.”

You can read the entire response by Dr. Lloyd-Jones on this subject over at Banner of Truth [HT: Aaron Sauer]. Also be sure to check out a few posts I’ve done related to this issue, of the “altar call”:

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Unity across Eschatological Positions

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

We’ve been discussing whether eschatological positions should hinder our unity in a local church, or beyond. Mark Dever recently challenged pastors to not let this hinder unity, even calling doctrinal statements that detail a specific millennial position, sinful.

In light of all this, I was struck when I read the following words from Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in a book I finished this weekend. Speaking on the phrase “let all things be done with charity” (1 Cor. 16:14), he addresses the question at hand directly.

In standing fast in the faith, if we are not animated by the spirit of love, we may not always differentiate as we should between faith in its essence and certain peculiar interpretations and expositions of our own. Here is a theme which might very easily occupy our minds on many occasions. There is nothing so tragic, I sometimes think, in certain circles as the way in which men fail to differentiate between that which is of the essence of the faith and certain other matters about which there can be no certainty. You cannot, I am told, be a member of the World Fundamentalist Association unless you believe in the “pre-millennial” return of our Lord and if you happen to be a “post-millenarian” you cannot be a Christian! If you are an “a-millenarian” you are just unspeakable. There you have an illustration of the importance of differentiating between the essence of the faith and the interpretation of a particular matter about which there has always been a difference of opinion. There is the same difference of opinion as to when the rapture of the saints is to take place. Men separate from each other about matters of that nature, where there is no certainty, and where there can be no certainty, though the return of the Lord is certain. Who can decide who is right, whether those who hold the pre-millennial, or those who hold the post-millennial view? I could mention great names on both sides, equally expert theologians. Surely these are matters where there can be a legitimate difference of opinion. Let us bear in mind the adage: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” “Stand fast in the faith.” Yes, but in a spirit of love.

[from The Christian in an Age of Terror: Selected Sermons of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones 1941-1950 (previously unpublished sermons, edited by Michael Eaton) — Kregel, pg. 264 ]

I think we see Lloyd-Jones agreeing with Dever here. As for me, I think we should leave the question open for membership, but we can define what our church will teach. But as we teach we should be careful with how we deal with opposing views.

I think this does shape how we approach Scripture (or how we approach Scripture shapes this issue). So it is emphatically important. But we should be careful to elevate our preferences and doctrinal conclusions on a matter that is not crystal clear, over and above the points of doctrine which are universally held and powerfully clear. When you elevate every position to the place of major doctrine, you minimize what Scripture presents as truly central.