Revival and Salvation (Part 2)

Occasionally, denominational writers will produce material that proves to be interesting and informative. Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ work on the Sermon on the Mount has some excellent insights, but his efforts in composing his book on Revival contain much Calvinism and other errors, including the main notion that for revival to occur, God must set it all in motion. Furthermore, the author declares that the Holy Spirit operates directly on human beings—regardless of whether they are Catholic or members of a Protestant denomination. This idea is tantamount to saying that God endorses all these religious groups with their various conflicting teachings. God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33).

Furthermore, one marvels at the actions that are attributed to the Holy Spirit. According to the author of Revival, the Spirit influences people to fall to the ground, faint, and even remain in a state of unconsciousness for a long period of time (134). In other instances, one may “suddenly begin to pray with an amazing eloquence” or prophesy accurately something that will happen shortly (135). One person allegedly had the ability to read people’s thoughts even though they were in another room (141). Here it sounds as though we have departed Christianity to enter the Twilight Zone (cue the music).

Lloyd-Jones argues that these manifestations cannot be of the devil (which some erroneously charge, since they can be natural phenomenon) because “thousands of people are converted to the Lord Jesus Christ and become true believers” (141). This claim must be strenuously objected to. Those who are saved by “faith only,” as the author insists, are not saved at all. That would make them saved without being baptized—a commandment that Jesus placed before salvation—not after it (Mark. 16:16). “Faith only” excludes repentance as well as baptism, the two things Peter mentioned as being essential in Acts 2:38.

Since “faith only” does not save, then God is not behind these various “manifestations” of the Holy Spirit. That does not prove the devil is behind them, however, since psychological explanations for such things will suffice.

The author continues to mention events that no one in 2024 has ever heard of, such as “the mill girls in Northern Ireland,” who were ignorant and poverty-stricken, with little education, but “suddenly began to prophesy” (144). These types of events are termed assurances. One hymnwriter penned the lines (177):

Tell me thou art mine, O Saviour;
Grant me an assurance clear….

Martyn asserts that people have read their Bibles, but they want something more—“something bigger and something deeper” (177). What they want is an experience with God—a personal assurance He is there.

These types of comments are what we have heard from charismatics for 50 years now—sentiments such as: “I know what the Bible teaches, but I want something more.” It is not unusual that when people fervently seek something, they will get “something.” They may mistake what they get for what they desired when it is not from God at all. Lloyd-Jones further writes:

The need is for something which will be so overwhelming, so divine, so unusual that it will arrest the attention of the world, and prove that we are… the unique and separate people of God (183).

Another word for this action is authentication (182). Somehow, people falling, fainting, and being in a state of unconsciousness is supposed to prove to the world that God exists? Besides, one can go out and tell all his neighbors of his personal assurances of God’s existence, but such authentication is purely subjective. Why should he be convinced by such personal claims? God records true miracles of an objective nature, which all could see, which were observed by reliable witnesses.

In Acts 3, Peter and John healed a man who had been lame from birth. He leaped up and entered the temple, walking and leaping. Peter explained that, through faith in the name of Jesus this man was healed—whom you see and know. (Acts 3:16). Nobody could deny the fact of his healing or that he had been lame all his life. This was not some subjective, internal experience, nor did it involve someone being unconscious for hours. He was lame all his life, and now he could walk. Now that’s authentication.

The Purpose for This Article

All these issues relate to the reason for writing this article, but the main purpose is to show the way the truth was handled with respect to salvation. It proves to be a great disappointment. Of course, the author has already declared erroneously that salvation is by “faith only.” But he is going to discuss Acts 2; so, what will he do when he comes to repentance and baptism as taught by Peter in verse 38? This question brings us to chapter sixteen of the book—to the chapter titled, “What Happens in Revival?”

Martyn states that we must go to Acts 2 to see what happened on that day because all revivals have been, “in a sense, a kind of repetition of what happened on the Day of Pentecost” (199). What happened was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the apostles; after several comments relating to what occurred, Lloyd-Jones finally gets around to Peter’s sermon (205). He points out that Peter expounded the Old Testament, which is true (Acts 2:14-21, 25-36). In the first section, Peter proclaims that what the crowd had observed was the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy; in the second passage, Peter shows that what David had prophesied was fulfilled.

However, the author only mentions Joel’s prophecy and not David’s concerning the resurrection or Christ’s ascension into heaven. Certainly, he does not here mention the questions asked of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” No, instead he talks about the church being filled with great joy, citing Acts 2:47 (205-206). That’s a large part of Acts 2 to omit—from verse 21 to 47. Surely there will be more.

As he makes the next point, he backs up a bit—but only to verse 42. He emphasizes their worship and their being together (2:42-46). This emphasis is followed by one that deals with the boldness of the apostles; specifically cited is Acts 2:23, where Peter plainly tells the crowd they had crucified Jesus, Who had devoted Himself to doing good, God having borne witness of Him with miracles (v. 22).

At this point, the author backs up and speaks of the Day of Pentecost again. He begins with Peter’s sermon once again, mentioning both Joel and David this time, and he ends at verse 36! He even quotes it: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” All right! Now we are up to the point where the crowd asks what they should do and Peter tells them to repent and be baptized. Lloyd-Jones describes it:

Peter had not yet arrived at the end of the sermon, but before he could finish, they cried out. He did not finish his sermon, and then have a hymn, and say to himself, ‘Now we come to the appeal,’ and try to persuade them to come forward. No, not at all. Before he had finished preaching they were crying out and saying, ‘What shall we do?’ … People were so deeply convicted of sin, so humbled broken and alarmed and terrified, that they interrupted the sermon and cried out saying, ‘Men and brethren, what shall we do?’ They are in agony of soul, suffering this profound conviction of sin (209).

So, does the author mention baptism? Yes, briefly, in a quote. His exacts words are given below.

‘Oh,’ says Peter, ‘repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.’ And they did. It is not a mere question of decision when you have revival, it is deep repentance. It is reformation (209).

Much more is said about repentance. Nothing else is mentioned concerning baptism (except when Acts 10:47 is cited at the end of the chapter). Lloyd-Jones does not discuss whether baptism should be done by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring. He does not claim that it is necessary for salvation; he does not explain the phrase, for the remission of sins. Why are these omissions significant? When he examines a passage of Scripture, he generally covers every significant part of it and devotes one or more paragraphs to explaining it further—even if he has provided abundant material on the passage previously. Why does he fail to comment at all on baptism?

Harmonization

But there is a larger issue here. Since he has already committed himself to justification by “faith only,” where does that leave repentance and baptism? By implication, they seem to come after salvation. Consider the following claim.

The whole moral condition is changed, when you get revival, when the Holy Spirit is doing his [sic] own work. Not only do individuals give up drink and so on, but public houses are shut and their businesses are ruined (209).

However, when does this repentance occur—before people are saved—or afterward. The implication seems to be afterward. According to his theology, it must be afterward, since salvation is by “faith only.” Therefore, baptism must be after one is saved, also. There is only one problem: That’s not the way the text reads in Acts 2. The multitude asks the question, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” If they were saved, they did not know it. They do not say, “Peter, we believe you and therefore are already saved. Now what?”

If Peter thought they were saved, he showed no sign of it, either. He would have said, “If you believe, you are saved. And now you should repent and be baptized.” But he did not so much as even hint they were saved. No, they needed to repent and be baptized in order to be saved. The reader notices that Lloyd-Jones makes no attempt to harmonize his “faith only” doctrine with the “repent and be baptized” reality of Acts 2. Again, his silence is remarkable for a person who can provide several pages of commentary on one small passage of Scripture.

Another irony is that he does not seem to distinguish between joining the church and being added to the church. Both expressions mean the same to him—even though joining the church is not in the text. He says:

And the converts joined the Church. It was not a case of temporary decisions, they joined the Church, they were added to the Church (210).

Nowhere in the New Testament does a text ever say that Christians joined the church. Saul of Tarsus tried to join with disciples—but not to become a member. His desire was to identify himself with brethren, but they did not believe he was a Christian (Acts 9:26). All are added to the church when they are baptized (Acts 2:47).

Are we being too hard on Lloyd-Jones for not saying more about baptism? Are we implying something about him that is not true? It so happens that a sermon on baptism by him is available online. Among other things, he says: “Baptism is not essential for salvation but is obligatory since Christ commanded it. It is a means of grace to strengthen faith,” and, “The purpose of baptism is to seal to believers their redemption, forgiveness, union with Christ, and receiving the Spirit.” Incredibly, he argues: “Coming ‘out of’’ water need not mean immersion.” Really? To what else can Acts 8:38-39 refer?