YOU SHALL RECEIVE POWER:
Martyn Lloyd-Jones and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit
By John Fanella

Although he lived centuries after the Puritan era, the late Martyn Lloyd-Jones (MLJ) clearly stood in the heritage of the Puritans. No man so clearly reflected not only the theology of the Puritans, but the practice and pastoral usefulness of Puritanism. MLJ delved the pastoral and practical depths of Puritanism more than any man in this century, actually applying the power of Puritan preaching and spirituality to a church and a city.

A part of MLJ’s Puritanism was his unique view of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. MLJ, like many of the Puritans, held to a two-tiered view of Spirit baptism. He had a dynamic view of the Holy Spirit and believed that Spirit baptism was subsequent to justification. This aspect of Lloyd Jones is troublesome to many Reformed people, who often have an “all-at-once” doctrine of Spirit baptism. In this article, I would like to explore MLJ’s thought on Spirit baptism and weigh it against the static view of the Holy Spirit commonly held in Reformed traditions. 

SPIRIT BAPTISM AND REGENERATION

For MLJ, Spirit baptism is not the same as regeneration. Regarding the relationship between Spirit baptism and regeneration, MLJ said,

“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.”

This statement alone is in direct opposition to most modern Reformed positions on Spirit baptism. The question is what did MLJ mean by this statement? Exegetically, MLJ draws a distinction between the kind of spiritual baptism experienced in Acts 2 and the baptism into the body of Christ spoken of in 1 Co. 12:13.  Pentecost, according to MLJ, was a revival, not a first time receiving of the Holy Spirit on the part of the Apostles. It was a greater outpouring of the Holy Spirit than what the apostles currently possessed.

Unless one is willing to say that the apostles were unregenerate before Pentecost, thereby lacking even the indwelling of the Spirit, one must agree with MLJ that Pentecost was a revival not regeneration. Should one deny the reality of seasonal revival and subsequent Spirit baptisms, by necessity one must maintain that the apostles and all present at Pentecost were unregenerate and were receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for the first time. Should one want to maintain that the apostles were regenerate but did not possess the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at the point of Pentecost (a common non-revivalist position), then one admits a non-Spiritual source of regeneration.

It is important to let MLJ define what he means by Spirit baptism:

“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 from becoming a Christian, being regenerate, or having the Holy Spirit dwelling within you.”

MLJ saw that the baptism of the believer into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit is “unconscious.” It generally precedes one’s awareness of the fact that God is calling him to faith and repentance. The baptism with Holy Spirit by Christ, on the other hand, is experimental. In other words, the believer is fully aware when it occurs. Who can deny the Apostle’s full and complete consciousness of the Spirit’s baptism in Acts 2?

The central issue in the relationship between regeneration and Spirit baptism is timing. MLJ wanted to leave room for the possibility, perhaps even the common pattern, of a person being regenerated, yet later receiving greater levels of Spiritual empowerment. What MLJ wanted to avoid was the static view of the Holy Spirit that maintains that when a person is regenerate, he has all the Spiritual power he’ll ever need; he simply needs to appropriate it. To MLJ, this seemed contrary to the Biblical witness, and the experience of men both in common eras as well as revival eras. I believe that MLJ was merely trying to be consistent with what he observed in Scripture and in history, and leaving the door open for it to happen again in like manner.   

SPIRIT BAPTISM AND REVIVAL

MLJ maintained that revival is an amplified Spirit baptism. He says:

“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.”  

Lloyd-Jones further linked corporate Spirit baptism (revival) with assurance.  He says:

“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.”

In considering MLJ’s position on revival, it is critical that we notice the results. For MLJ, Spirit baptism and revival were about spiritual empowerment and assurance of salvation. MLJ was saying something very different than the charismatics, with whom he is often mistakenly associated. MLJ does not require outward sign gifts, such as the gift of tongues, to authenticate Spirit baptism; rather he clearly roots the evidence in assurance and empowerment for service.

Further, MLJ does not limit the Spiritual filling to a singular crisis (as do the charismatics and Wesleyans). It is continuous, and at the Lord’s sovereign disposal.

Even further, MLJ insisted that Spirit filling is coupled with reason.  He does not follow the gnosticism of many within the charismatic movement and “turn off” reason in order to “turn on” the Spirit.  He knew of no such dichotomy because the Scriptures know of no such dichotomy.  One glance at his massive set of sermons on Romans will demonstrate even to the most suspicious of naysayers that Lloyd Jones did not exalt experience at the price of reason. I have found very few  non-revivalists who have reasoned through the book of Romans so well. Here, MLJ is akin to Jonathan Edwards, who saw that Revival was coupled with the assimilation of doctrinal truth. In fact, the First Great Awakening was precipitated by a series of sermons by Edwards on the doctrines of grace.  MLJ (and Edwards) is good medicine for revivalists today who want signs and wonders, not assurance, spiritual empowerment, and doctrinal truth.

SPIRIT BAPTISM TODAY

The real question is what are we to do with MLJ’s position on Spirit baptism? It is my contention that we must first seriously consider it.  Tragically, Reformed writers, preachers, and teachers have not led the way on the discussion of the Holy Spirit.  John Calvin was called, “The theologian of the Holy Spirit.” No system is as Spiritual as Calvinism. Yet we are tragically silent on the topic. Next, we must repent that we have been so neglectful of the Holy Spirit in our lives, and have attempted to live and serve without him.

But then what do we do? Do we all become Reformed charismatics? I am not certain that  MLJ would ask that of us. However, I think he would ask us to become more “Spiritual” than we currently are. That is, we must adopt a dynamic view of the Holy Spirit--one that allows for and seeks greater fillings and greater outpourings of his power in our lives and in our churches.  I think MLJ would notice the pathetic lack of power and assurance in our day, and lay the blame on the fact that we’ve neglected the Holy Spirit.  He would say we must be baptized in the Spirit if we are ever to grow.

Now I realize that this whole matter is unsettling to some Reformed readers.  But perhaps it’s time someone unsettled us.  Maybe it’s time we listen to the wisdom of men who knew God’s dealings with men--men like MLJ and Jonathan Edwards.